Slashdot Mirror
Tim O'Reilly Bashes Open Source Efforts in Govt
There's a tremendous difference between what government should be allowed to do and what individuals should be allowed to do. O'Reilly is attempting to blur the distinction, a common rhetorical tactic but one which does not advance his argument. As far as I can tell, his only argument besides this is that if the citizenry pushes for the government to use Free software, companies will push back to use proprietary crud. This argument doesn't hold water - every company selling proprietary software is lobbying the government all the time, have been for years, and they aren't going to stop just because we do. CNet carries news today that Microsoft has pressured the NSA to drop development of Security-Enhanced Linux. I can only imagine what sort of pressures might have been brought to bear behind the scenes, perhaps Microsoft threatened to cancel the NSA's site licenses of Windows and Microsoft Office. But in any case, there's no such thing as "mutual disarmament" - if we back down we'll just get smashed by the continuing efforts of companies pushing proprietary software.
But back to the government/individual distinction. Individuals, for instance, shouldn't be required to disclose their private papers to anyone who asks. But government should: that's the foundation of our freedom of information laws, and they exist for a good reason - keeping an eye on government is a necessary thing. Saying "People should be free to keep their papers private" as an argument against government FOI laws is just a stupid strawman, unworthy of further debate. And that's what O'Reilly's argument against California's proposed law is as well.
Governments play by different rules. They need to be fiscally responsible, transparent to the public, and promote the public commonwealth whenever possible. Using Open Source or Free Software in government promotes all three of these goals, and if Microsoft or any other corporation doesn't make quite as much money when the government alters its standards for software procurement... so what? Companies who make shoddy products do lose business when the government ups its standards, and they have the same choice as any business does: either produce better products, or lose the government's business. In this case the shoddiness comes in some of the most important areas as far as software goes: open access to the code, to ensure the software that we the citizenry pay for is doing what it is supposed to be doing, but the rationale would be the same if the government mandated a certain level of bug-free-ness or a certain level of performance for software - you can shape up and continue selling to the government or you can ship out. Your choice.
O'Reilly seems to be promoting the agenda of Microsoft's Software Choice campaign. He's a business man; perhaps there's a reason we don't know about. But whatever his motives, his lame arguments are no reason to stop pushing for governments to use Free or Open Source software wherever possible.
The anti-open source movement. Where no gnus is good gnus.
Come on, O'Rielly has no interest in pushing anything Microsoft. He's just saying that the government should use the best tools for the job, and not belabor it's choices with (more) bureaucracy.
OpenSource cheapens the value of developers because it lets users become accustomed to getting something for nothing -- the exact same failed model of the dot-coms....
If you want to be idealistic, OpenSource is great. If you want to sell your code or your programming services, OpenSource does not put food on the table...
Seriously, Michael, this is really childish. Tim O'Reilly has done fantastic work for the community, including even publishing some of his company's books for free on the internet, and all you can think to do is make sly accusations about his "motives."
Grow up, Michael. People can disagree with each other without having to resort to implicit "He's bought off!" accusations. It happens all the time in the real world.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
I mean, that would allow us to post replies and maybe discuss your position. Instead, we're sort of left with you commenting from on high. Then again, I notice that the /. editors almost never post unless it's to clear up something about /. itself (is that some sort of policy?).
Still, I think you should come join the rest of us if you want to editorialize.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
If an individual wants to restrict himself to Open Source, there's absolutely no problem with that, so long as it does not contradict any previously-signed-and-still-active agreements on his part not to do so. People are allowed to behave as ideologically as they choose, within pretty broad limits.
However, there is no excuse for a government doing so. Governments are supposed to be more responsible than that -- and to require a drastic litmus test that completely ignores more important issues, such as "is this the best tool for the job given our budget", is arrogance and foolishness.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
So, should government organizations not be allowed to make *any* policies of what licenses they will accept?
Or is it just the requirement to be able to switch vendor for support and development (which is what an "open source" requirement really means) that should not be allowed as a policy?
Open source advocates are zealots? No @#$%@#$ way!
/. poster/moderator.
At least there are a couple of them (read article) that have an ounce of common sense, unlike the typical
I'm rather quite relieved to hear Tim O'Reilly of all people sharing the same opinion as me: that as good as open-source is, it should _NEVER_ be forced on people. That in essence destroys the 'freedom of choice' that is the driving force behind open-source. (hey, it rhymes...)
It is good that some of the "big players" are already thinking ahead about this, in case one day we actually do topple the big corporations (I'm not holding my breath). I wonder what RMS' and Torvalds' opinion of the matter is.
To be perfectly honest, no, I have not yet read Tim's snippet. However, I don't think that "Bashes" should be used..I know that this isn't necessarily an objective news medium, but I think that a lot of Slashdot readers agree with him, as I've noted from recent related articles. He's not bashing the act, just stating that the act is no different than what the software giants were doing previously with their economy of scale. Just because we're on the morally correct side (moreso than say Microsoft, kindly proprietary software vendors do exist) doesn't justify shutting out other solutions.
If you love something, set it free. If the governments proposing similar things would step back from regulating the choice of software solution and let logic prevail, a lot of times they would end up using OS solutions anyway.
--- What
There are people in Government too, should they not be allow to choose whatever suits their job best? If someone found a VB application that does exactly what they want it to do, why should they be forced to use something that doesn't fit their needs correctly because it runs on a closed source system? Its unfair.
There are lots of programs that people are familiar and comfortable with and there should be no law mandating that they can't use them. You shouldn't criticize these guys until you stop doing the same thing.
Burnt Karma keeps me so warm...
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Man, when I first read the article title I thought it said "Bill O'Reilly (of FOX News) Bashes Open Source Efforts In Govt" and I was thinking "Oh God, please don't tell me we're going to start hearing about 'socialized software development'!"
This ain't a very good start of the day for me (10:30a is too early in the morning for me)...
GMD
watch this
http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfa rs/fardfars/far/01.htm#P5_473
read the Federal Acquisition Regulations
Full, fair and open procurementis ALREADY THE LAW.
Leave it to Michael to miss the point right under his nose.
Companies who make shoddy products do lose business when the government ups its standards, and they have the same choice as any business does: either produce better products, or lose the government's business.
Sheesh, Michael, READ YOUR OWN FREAKING WORDS. Yes, that's the way it should be done. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "affirmative action" for software. Screw using the best solution, we're going to require open source whether it's the best solution or not.
If you want to advocate that all government DOCUMENTS must be in an open format, then that's a reasonable stand most people can get behind.
But to argue on the one hand that Government should be required to use open source no matter what, while on the other hand arguing that the government should always use the best products is nuttiness as best, and idiocy at worst.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The government should choose open source simply because open source solutions are cheap. One redhat cd and a cdrw are all you need to equip the entire government with redhat. Its the best value for the money and since its my tax money I want a say. Opensource solutions are also easier to customize since you can modify whatever you like all you need is some skills and or money to buy people with said skills. You cant really change windows now can you. Anyone who hasu used opensource prodects will tell you they are not much is at all worse then proprietary tech because they are designed to compete with the microsofts of the world. There isnt much if anything that cant be done with Linux as opposed to Windows and for much less money.
i'm a bit tired of the childish bullshit too.
i used to love this place and even had it as my homepage for a looong time. Now, i have to wade through worthless front page stories and the Ed.s' "tack-on" elitist, personal opinions.
And O'Reilly has it -- he is usually well thought out, not always right but usually close.
Now who are you Michael?
Frankly, I agree with O'Reilly in the big picture. I agree with you a bit as well -- in that open source should lobby. We need to apply the "be careful what you ask for" rule here. I still say you don't want the overhead of government in open source, regulating open source or touching it in any way. Do you not remember the golden rule of government? What I touch I can tax and regulate.
In the US the best government is the least government.
You know, to me this whole things brings the same feeling as the debate on affirmative actions for minorities or disabled persons.
It's really touchy and there are always going to be people for and against, no matter how you turn the queston.
Yes, because we know that Red Hat will eventually grow to feed all programmers world-wide.
username binladen
password donkeyfuck
Fuck the vcade
If Microsoft were to allow the governemnt employees involved, witn NDA's, to see the source for said MS products...would microsoft qualify as "open source?" The government isn't mandating FREE software...but open source software....and theoretically, this is due to wanting to see the 'flaws and limitations' first hand.....
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
For one thing, a democratic government has no right to privacy unless national security is at stake. All doings within the government should be disclosed to its citizens, so that they can properly, responsibly perform their democratic function of selecting the government.
If it is not a threat to national security (opening up opportunities for hackers or other exploitation of a flaw in the system) then this should be extended to software. They can legislate that this material cannot be used elsewhere, but we have the right to know everything they do - a system that distributes SIN numbers, a system that ID's us, a system that handles billing for a government agency - we have the right to know the algorithms and flaws in the system as they effect us and they are accountable to us. They may copyright the functional use of this data to protect the investment of time by those who created the system, but this data should still be freely available information - just not actually compiled and used.
At least in theory. In practice everything I've just suggested is preposterous and impractical. But in theory this is the level of information we deserve from our government.
Besides, at the very least the government should stay at open, universal standards, so that there is no cost of entry into the study of politics. Personally, I believe that every library should have a TV stuck on C-Span and a computer linked to government websites containing existing and pending legislation, as well as information on the operating methods of all those responsible for acting out the government's will. 100% unlimited access to information on political discourse and the doings of a democratic is a right, or else the system is a fraud. A destitute bum should have the ability to find out whatever his government is and has been doing if he chooses to. Whether or not he does is his decision. That's freedom. That's democracy.
Again - this is ideal, and theoretical. Not practical. But we deserve to know everything our government does, no matter how insignificant. Since their code is an extension of themselves implementing the policies they set forth, then we need that too. How else can we make a truely informed decision, as is our right and duty in the democratic process?
You fscking twit.
Had you even read/bothered to comprehend the submitter's blurb you would have seen that O'Reilly is advocating a non-preferential approach to software selection. He wants a level playing field. Period. He wants to avoid launching the Open Source world into the same shitty realm of back-slapping, handshaking, sure-thing-old-chum crap that we're fighting against right now.
He is not Bashing Open Source Efforts. Ye gads, why on earth are you slandering Tim O'Reilly, of all people? He's on our side!
Would you please, please, please show a modicum of journalistic integrity, and make at least a cursory effort towards real reporting?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
In a democracy, the People make their choices in an election.
If the DSSA is passed, the Government has not been forced to use Open Source by some outside force. The Government, as representative of the will of the People, has chosen to use Open Source.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
O'Reilly is attempting to blur the distinction, a common rhetorical tactic but one which does not advance his argument.
Actually, he's advocating using the best tool for the job, and that zealous fanatics that insist on using Open Source everything will get us nowhere. Your implications that O'Reilly is being paid off by Microsoft are childish, to say the least. What article have you been reading?
Is your browser retarded?
However, I *do* think it's important to focus on the format of the public data. Anything that is public property should not require proprietary software to access. I shouldn't have to buy MicroSoft products to read public documents.
Looking at it from that angle, Open Source is just one aspect of the solution. Documents could be produced in text, postscript, pdf, html -- there are plenty of formats with free readers (accessors) - which I think is the important part. That way, those creating the docs can use whatever tools they feel are best for the job, but those reading the documents aren't locked into those same tools.
If we mandate Open Source in government all of us will benefit! Not that Open Source is always gratis, but think of the savings in the great beaurocratic halls of waste, $800 a head for Windows and MS Office, when OpenOffice would suffice.
I'm in Miami, where we have the most corrupt government in the USA. Our county manager was bought by Oracle, who after a year of committees and studies and what have you, chose them over PeopleSoft to create a county wide database.
The difference in cost was quite a few millions, not chump change. What made the episode even more shameful, was that the county's DBAs recommended the PeopleSoft system!
Fact, Open Source is typically a less expensive liscencing option. That's your money they're spending.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
I have also never met a serious geek (although there are some around) that likes free software because they have delusions of grandeur about all software being free.
I (and many others) like it because it works best in many situations.
However, I'm using commercial software right now. It works better for what I'm doing. I'm a pragmatist, at heart, which is what you need to be if you want to be a good software engineer.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
please excuse my lame typo. government. a large object (read: k-6 400 case) fell on my hand last night and i am typing with one hand. (save the obvious pr0n jokes.....)
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
The government employees would also write open-source software.
These laws would be just as bad as the opposite: requiring the gov't to ONLY buy closed-source sw, or only use sw that is provided by a company, with support, yadda, yadda, yadda.
/. version of it has taken all that away, plus some.
These restrictions are unthoughtful tinkerings into the world of SW. The people making decisions on which SW to use should be able to consider all the SW available and able make a decision (to use the best one). This shouldn't be regardless of the license...but that's one of the "features" of the SW to consider to see what is best. It's just dumb and ignorant to say "you much use only open source".
Some morron had to take a perfectly good article by Tim, but a bad spin on it, and add paragraphs of illogical comments (that couldn't be modded down).
I was a better person for having read Tim's article...but reading the
-I'm now a dumber person.
I have a lone Linux box in a sea of NT boxes here at the Corps of Engineers. That box was put here because I was able to code a few dynamite apps that have since proven to be invaluable to the Corps.
It was the services that I was able to provide to the Corps that mandated inclusion of Linux into our infrastructure. I was able to more with my open source tools than the NT guys could with theirs.
I would not have wanted this box here by any method.
If you believe that Open Source can trounce proprietary methods based on its merits then you need to be against mandating Open Source.
All we need is a Microsoft disciple being FORCED to use OSS and being turned off forever. That converts no one.
No company should really be buying Microsoft products. A basic tenet of survival is to always have an available second source for any vital components. This assures several things, amongst them being
1) competition for available market by the suppliers and therefore reduced prices
2) no hostage situation where you end up at the whim of your supplier
3) reduced possibilities of the supply disappearing due to problems within the supplier
These basic tenets were long ago abandoned by those following a Microsoft Solution TM.
An Open Source TM solution is much better. The right to run and modify the code cannot disappear. Anyone can be hired to work on and improve the code and you get full access to any contributions.
As a consumer of operating system and office products, open source, or operation with a fully public and multi-sourced interface, is the only way to go. The requirement of a fully public and open interface for programming against and database format should be the basis of buisness management, private and public. All suppliers should be required to demonstate full interoperation and replaceability before being considered.
"We didn't fully understand the consequences of releasing software under the GPL (General Public License)," said Dick Schafer, deputy director of the NSA. "We received a lot of loud complaints regarding our efforts with SE Linux."
First i have a hard time believing that the NSA didnt read and interpret the GPL license before they begun.
And where has those complaints been coming from? I cant see any other company that would suffer from a secure linux effort other than Microsoft. I would love to know just what happened behind the scenes and how high up this went before it got ugly.
Considering the amount of work they spend on helping people to secure Windows the GPL should be a non issue unless politics and probably some very influencial people are behind this.
Its a real ugly battle and i do hope the real story gets out soon.
HTTP/1.1 400
As far as I can tell, his only argument besides this is that if the citizenry pushes for the government to use Free software, companies will push back to use proprietary crud.
Michael, you really should read what you are trying to criticize. It does seem that "as far as you can tell" isn't very far.
Tim's two main points are:
(1) More choice is better than less choice. Forbidding to use commercial software == less choice.
(2) In many (but not all) cases governments should behave rationally and use the best tools available to do a task. Very often commercial software IS the best tool. Forbidding to use it doesn't seem very rational.
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Again, O'Reilly has missed the point.
his is not about OSS / FSS software on anyone. Its about transparency in the government -- about the people's right to know.
The people have the right to know exactly what source code the government is using to protect them. We have the right to know what code protects our privacy in, for example, records which are ruled sealed.
Lets say that your daughter's molested and a trial occurs, in which she testifies. For her protection, her testimony is sealed; if an electronic copy is made, it is cryptographically sealed. If this is done using proprietary software, we the citizens have no way of being assured that it is really secure. If the software used to do that is OSS / FS, then we can check and make sure.
This is a somewhat important example, but the same principal applies to even trivial things. We, the citizens, have the right to know exactly how the software our government is using works; at least where it pertains to us.
Obviously, military top secret stuff is different; though it certainly need not be based on proprietary technology -- nothing prevents the military from modifying OSS / FS software and then keeping those modifications secret within the division. As that doesn't really count as distribution; i.e., in house modifications are not considered "distributed". Its only "distribution" when you make it available to the general public.
That is why the government mustI use OSS / FS, because of our right to know.
An additional benefit is cost-effectiveness. Our tax dollars pay for this stuff, and in almost all cases, OSS / FS is a cheaper solution, both in terms of initial price and total cost of ownership.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Your going to be joining Katz pretty soon the way your stories are going...
In open software's case there are people willing to volunteer to lobby but they just don't have the resources to appeal to a congresscritter's wallet^H^H^H^H^H^Hsenibilities.
In the end, something has to be done to level the playing field. Laws like this will do just that.
The big question is: Why is O'reilly doing this? Has Billy Deep-Pockets gotten to him? Or is he worried that laws like this will make it difficult for him to make a profit int he future?
In software it has NEVER been the cost of the software that is the expensive part of the solution. This is an argument you will loose.
If the argument was that you use Product X because it's cheap then Oracle wouldn't be where it is today.
If the argument was you don't use Photoshop because MS Paint is cheap (free/etc.) then you wouldn't be in business today.
The argument has to be use product X because it's cost effective.
If you can't sell it on cost effective don't force it on me. I pay taxes as well.
Does this mean that the California government cannot buy ANY software the doesn't have open source?
That would include software upgrades to:
Cisco IOS routers
Traffic light controllers
Motherboard BIOS
Government owned telephone switches
etc.
So the mantra will be I am not buying software upgrades to "insert name of device with buggy software here" because the manaufacture isn't open source.
Now is the time to start making Linux powered phone switches, traffic controllers, and routers!
Well if the government should use the best tools for the job, which is generally accepted as a good idea, perhaps there ought to be some assurance that they are the best tools, so perhaps there should be no assurance that the source code be distributed to all the public, but perhaps the source ought to be distributed to the government agencies that use the software, especially if it's security-dependent. Go ahead and let them use microsoft, but let them see the code. Not only will this allow the government agencies to see what holes there may or may not be and fix them if necessary, but it will also serve to dissuade companies that are afraid to disclose their source code.
Personally, I'd just go for open source code in the first place, though. No, individuals should not be forced to use open source code any more than they should be forced to use proprietary code, but the fact is that the government is not an individual and doesn't necessarily follow the same standards
Take, for example, the case of a person in the military. He are not guaranteed a jury by his peers, but rather a military courtmarshal trial should he be accused. Civilians would cry out at that suggestion, but for security and political reasons, members of the military are tried in military court.
Requiring open source software is a good idea for the government, not because we lilke linux, but because the people deserve to know that their government is using secure software, and the only way to guarantee that is to allow them to look at the source. There are a lot more "good guys" who would look over the source to notify agencies of any holes than there are "bad guys" who would break into a system for destructive purposes.
Open source also allows the government to modify code for its specific purposes. It also allows that modified code to be posted where security companies can look at it to check it for errors.
At that point, security companies can propose bug fixes and charge for their time, defeating the argument of software for nothing. The good part about open source software is not that it's free to own and maintain, but that it's free to modify and debug.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Surely if O'Reilly followed the Peruvian campaign he must have understood that the goal is to ensure that public data remains public, and that that implies openness in formats?
He seems to skate over this and just characterize any policy for open source as arbitrary prejudice.
Openness in requirements is important, just don't forget what the key requirements should be.
That's the OP in a nutshell.
O'Reilly's argument isn't "the right tool for the right job". His argument is that requiring the use of Open Source in government is a losing strategy for Open Source because it polarizes the software community and encourages vendors of proprietary software to fight back harder with legal weapons.
There's nothing wrong with pushing Open Source use in government. But accomplishing by law what can't accomplished in a fair procurement market (which should be mandated by law) is a recipe for Open Source to become the affirmative action software--unable to compete on its merits, it succeeds by political hackery
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
I love open source software. There's a lot of proprietary software I love, too.
I don't want myself told that I have to use an inferior tool just because it's open source. I don't want my government to have similar restrictions.
If open source is better, then let it *compete*. If free (price) and open source still aren't enough to persuade users to switch, then maybe it's not yet as good as its proponents claim it is, and maybe that's where they should focus their energies.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
It's not a question of forcing anyone to buy only open source or only closed source software. That thrust of questioning obfucates the underlying issue. The actions of governing bodies ought to be accessible to the governed and there should not be any imposition of closed or proprietary standards required to interact with our government.
Documents should be available in non-proprietary formats, and documents required to be submitted to governmental agencies should not be forced to have to be in proprietary formats. This should be a basic requirement for our governing bodies at the federal, state/commonwealth, county/parish, and city levels.
If proprietary software should have to compete to meet these obligations. The smart way to insert open source software components is not to claim that open source is inherently better (even though it obviously is), but to show how open source meets the standards of an open governing system.
Closed systems are too often present at all levels. I can understand that scholarly journals may have requirements that manuscripts be submitted in the word processing format of their choice and on the preferred media of their choice. Those are just the rules of the game you have to play if you choose to publish in peer reviewed journals. At least the mathematical journals accept LaTex. And some printing services prefer Quark files for their layout services. That's their prerogative. However, all citizens have to interact with their governments at time. And the gov't ought not to impose the requirement that anyone wishing to submit proposals under requests for proposals or wishing to submit legal documentation be required to use proprietary data interchange formats. Proprietary formats require the use of proprietary software which may cost some citizens too much. It is not just for a government to keep some of their citizens out of the game.
And this lack of justice is the key reason that open formats should be used. And the fact that open source software can best meet the usage of open formats is the best reason that open source software ought to be used.
The money for open source will come from support, not software sales. Redhat has a good buisness model, and hopefully they will be able to make it in a market place currently very hostile to anything not M$. They are partnerd with some great companies like IBM so you will see them move up the server foodchain from low end hardware for routine tasks (mail, proxy, firewall...) to big data crunching tasks.
Ask youself this, if you work for a company and youre using open source software (OS/Office Suite/whatever) in addition to the employees at Redhat and IBM how likely are you to hire one or two developers to create a more effecient environment. Now if you work for an MS shop how likely are you to hire any developers??
the fact is both models will work (for different companies) but open source has shown the power developers have to shape the industry, not weakend us at all..
i personally think most of you guys arent reading what the man said. he said that basically open source needs to fight. and guess what we dont have 45billion in liquid cash to throw at politicians like some "other" companies and interests do. (and if you think microsofts "software choice" will support anything other than microsofts own software your high!)
open source companies and software advocates need to start fighting any way they can. and public opinion is the first battle. california not too long ago made a really screwed up software choice about a month or two ago (READ: ORACLE) and now the open source sommunity is using that for there own advantage. as they should.
and since we are on the subject im going to ask each and every one of you a Question. Do You Want YOUR personal data kept on windows boxes ? i mean REALLY? are you comfortable having all the unpleaseant people of the world being able to get access to your personal data ? cause ill tell you what - im not , and having open-ED source software that can be patched quicker and more effectively than by some company who wants to start a panick and then "sell another soulution to the issue". think about it. im not even saying i dont want microsoft software on the boxes. just i want something that can be viewed and fixed pre-emptively if need be. and if microsoft doesnt want to have employees of the state of CA sign NDA's and open their source to make US safer - they can take a flyin leap off a bridge.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
It's too bad the Authors don't have an 'Anonymous Idiot' option when they post something.
michael, it's crap propoganda like this that makes it even harder for open source advocates to maintain credibility.
You deserve the Katz'ing that you're getting.
No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
Uh, how is access to source code (and/or the freedom to modify it) any different from the usual list of product requirements? If propriety software vendors want the business of the government, then they'll provide the features the client wants. I certainly wouldn't want my government procuring military vehicles, for instance, without specification sheets and the ability to repair them, etc.
The details of the source code license can be hammered out seperately, or on a case by case basis, as most features are (e.g., one restriction might be that nobody but the originating company may use the source for commercial profit - which would be fine for gov).
Of course this doesn't need to be legislated as an absolute. IIRC, the Peruvian proposol only says "use open source if there is no better proprietary software that suits the purposes". Nobody is saying "use open source period, end of story, never ever ever ever use proprietary software". That's ridiculous. Where openness of code and protocols and formats is critical, access to source code is just another client requirement.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Look, I work for a state government (not CA). While I think it should be allowable to USE open source software, the IT department is still going to have to set and enforce certain standards.
Plus, there's an awful lot of vertical applications out there that governments need. It's not like it's all Windows and Office, folks! Ever think about all the different functions in a government? Building and maintaining roads, issuing licenses, handling welfare payments, collecting taxes, issuing tax refunds, tracking the use of every type of agricultural product under the sun, providing for the public health, administering prisons, hospitals, running a court system....it goes on and on and on.
Sure, encourage open source, but require it? Never. Too many niche areas.
To take a hypothetical example, what if defense contractors were unwilling to open-source missile-targeting software because it considers that information part of its proprietary competitive advantage? Do we want to put the government in the position of saying no, we can't use the best targeting package, we have to use whatever open-source option is available? That seems hugely irresponsible.
O'Reilly is right that open-source options should always be among the products considered for procurement, but to require them is a mistake. It ignores the fact that IT decisions (engineering decisions in general) entail tradeoffs -- between functionality, cost, usability, training difficulty, support, compatibility, performance, and many other factors -- and that mandating open-source solutions may require unacceptable levels of compromise on other dimensions that might be more important in a given situation.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
The government shouldn't necessarily force the use of OSS, but rather make it a requirement to have full access to the source of a product they intent to use.
The difference would be that the software manufacturer doesn't need to change the license, but will have to make the source code available for review by the public. That doesn't mean that they give away their software. They still have the copyright and any use of the code without a license would be illegal.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
Sorry if I don't go along with the mantra, but I think that O'Reilly has a valid point. Legislating open source in government is not the answer.
I think a better solution would be a competition, ala defense procurements. The government lists what it needs, and everyone shows up and demonstrates what they can do. If open source can do everything the government needs, at a fraction of the price, then you have you solution. You could even put in place a performance to cost ratio to determine value. (ie- This product can 90% of what this other product does, but costs $250,000 less. Is 10% worth $250,000?)
I'm not saying that the procurement process isn't flawed, just that legislative mandates have historically spawned unintended consequences at a prodigious rate.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
The proposed law in California seems about as draconian as it's inverse would be.
I see no mention of a clause that (IIRC) Peru's proposed legislation has, that allows proprietary software to be used if there's no open source project that fits the project.
Instead of buing the round block for the round hole, they'll have to take a square block and slice & dice it until it's round?
Then there's the simple fact that Open Source isn't automatically better.
Let's face it, no matter how many Open Source projects are equal to or better than proprietary equivalents, there are still numerous pieces of proprietary software that are currently better than any Open Source equivalent.
At least one country realized this (Norway, IIRC), and just mandated that Open Source be considered along side Close Source programs.
Let them all stand on their merits (price, polish, support, ease of use, et al), and as long as the file formats are open, let the best software (for each job) win.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
Like 99.83% of all professionel programmers, I sell "my programming services", not the software I write. I.e. someone with a software need pay me to implement a solution. I get paid for my work, my employer get his problem solved, and as a side effect, software is created. I and my employer distribute the software freely in the hope someone will improve it, thus giving both of us additional features for free.
It would make perfectly sense for a government to try to get the same benefits as my employer does.
i personally believe that when the government has a duty to support American companies, and unfortunately if this passes it will serously limit the options of government to do that. In times like now where the economy isn't doing too well historically government spending increases to boost the economy, and unfortunately if they aren't going to support a corporation, RedHat or Microsoft, then one of their inherited obligations of helping the economy is going to suffor.
In your example programmers are like musicians and their product is the played song (with no copyright restrictions).
As such -- anyone can play anyone elses music.
Anyone can improve on anyone elses music.
The top 1% will get paid for playing.
The next 9% will form bands and work for peanuts.
The bottom 90% will either starve or learn to wait tables.
Of course your points stand:
1. Everyones skills will improve
2. The audience for your work is huge -- of course they are all listening to the top 1% or in a small case the next 9%.
3. The market is expanded incredibly. Garage bands are all the rage. If you can wait tables and play you may even survive.
Did I miss something (I'm not a good waiter).
OK, I can understand that people don't like the idea of forcing people to use open source. I agree that it is not a preferable way to go. But I think there is an important point here beyond the politics.
Governments handle much of our crucial information - defense info, Social Security, tax stuff, etc. I have no doubt that most office workers doing their thing use Office tools in the government, and commercial programs for critical data processing. On the face of it, it would seem silly not to. Commercial software is supported.
But what happens if a major software provider for the government goes bust? No source code, no way to fix problems. That isn't acceptable. Period. So maybe the thing to do is to ensure that, rather than force the government to use open source software, have things work so that any license the government gets for software includeds a copy of the source, and the right to maintain it should the company supporting it go bust or EOL the product. That would be justifiable and a good idea.
Open source has the advantage of already being fully available. But mandating open source is overkill. Mandating consideration of open source, including the cost of adding features to or creating a new project - that I can see and would approve of. Not mandating open source for all uses. Some software is hard to develop in an open environment, such as specialized research software for scientific applications.
Where I can see mandating open code, either BSD or public domain licensing, is in software government employees write, excepting critical security code. If they do some useful database software with taxpayer money, why shouldn't we use it? But that doesn't restrict government usage of commercial software.
Just my opinion of course, but to me it makes sense. Make sure that govenment used software doesn't become unmaintainable (not unmaintained, note, just not unmaintainable) and that government written software is open and available whenever possible.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Should the government stop buying commercial routers because they use a proprietary operating system?
Should the government ground the entire F-16 fleet until some open source programmer releases a GPL F-16 fire control system?
People choose licenses for a reason. A single type of license is *not* the law.
I love Linux, and use it at home on my only desktop machine, but I would never want to force someone to use it. Weather or not it is the best tool for the job, people should have a choice. GNU/Linux is about choice. I want to be able to buy some proprietary software (like Opera), but we need STANDARDS. That is what it is about. Relying on one provider is not the answer. That goes for closed and open source alike.
Face it. There are just some things that you can't do with open source software, but closed options often limit the ability to be competitive, and to innovate. We've seen this for years.
In the end, closed advocates (e.g. Microsoft) are going to try to force out OSS by the means of the DMCA. I know that it is ridiculously unfair, but we have to work around it. If we try to force *everyone* to use OSS, then we will be no better. Yes, open source software will improve drastically, but we will lose the drive to be competitive. The same goes for closed software. Microsoft's attempt to lock down control over all forms of media and software will cause the same effect. We must be level with all of this.
I don't want my favorite OS to be pushed out of existence because some silly politician was too ignorant to support it for its benefits (I know that is the fear of many), but forcing people to use it isn't going to fight the opposition in favor of Palladium, and the likes.
I also still believe that: " I do think that it is a big plus for many (or most) products if it is an open source one. Even if it was true in all cases, some closed source products can still be superior. There are cases and specialist areas in which development under closed source can be done with bigger and better resources, which eventually results in a better product. ...and I must say that I prefer open source a lot... and still I think these proposed open source -only laws are utterly stupid."
Microsoft and the rest try to get contracts that FORCE government to use their products - what about CHOICE then?
Seems to me, that the government I'm paying for should not buy overpriced software without the source, and rely on a private company who could go bankrupt, get bought by another country/business, etc.
If the government uses all open source, especially GPL, there will NEVER be those problems - the government can continue to use and update the software forever.
Sounds to me like some companys might be about to lose some fat government contracts ... boo #$%^ hoo! Microsoft (and the rest) don't have the RIGHT to live off of government contracts. The superiority (in terms of cost alone) of open source being used in government is OBVIOUS.
Imagine most of the government workers using $0 per station linux boxes instead of $$XX per station Windows - sounds like good business to me. Hell, maybe we could even get a tax break because of it.
There are two types of people; those who divide people into two types of people, and those who don't.
Governments pass laws all time to restrict expenditure: laws banning deficit spending etc...
:) money.
Think of it like this: paying tax sucks and the way government spends tax is even worse, for example wasying countless dollars on proprietary software. Switching to open source will save tax payers (you, well most of you
Now why would government waste money on expenisve products that they could replace for FREE with open source products? Could it be because of the extensive lobbying eforts and "donations" (read bribes) on behalf of proprietary software vendors? Could it be because inept government bureaucracies keep their budgets artificially high so they can extract more tax payer money?
Think of this a fiscal responsibility combined with enough muscle to counteract the lobbying/bribing of the proprietary software industry and the unwillingness of inept bureaucrats to deflate their budgets.
If this Act were combined with a fiscal responsibilty act think of the money you (as a taxpayer) would be saving.
And all of this is on top of the fact that Open Source, in concept and practice, if far more compatible with DEMOCRACY and an OPEN society -- something which our governments CLAIM to be in favor of.
This is also another step towards government ACCOUNTABILITY -- with citizens being ale to monitor and know what government is up to. Not only should government switch to open source software it should be compelled (by "the people" of course) TO OPEN SOURCE ITSELF! Open source government, what a novel concept -- som people call that DEMOCRACY -- not this shit that we have now!
>his lame arguments are no reason to stop pushing
>for governments to use Free or Open Source
>software wherever possible.
His point was that the legislation would require the government to use free or open source software at all times, not "wherever possible".
Use the best tool for the job. If that's free/open, great. If it's not, oh well.
As a citizen and taxpayer, I'd be more annoyed at the government being forced to use a cheaper yet inferior product if a better one is available.
-l
The whole issue for Linux folks has been freedom, hasn't it? Free Speech, Free Beer and Free software; Why now try to eliminate freedom to choose by forcing Linux as the only choice? Isn't this the same issue that Microsoft is on trial for? (This PC comes with your CHOICE of Windows XP or Windows ME....) Isn't this more than a little hipocritical?
Isn't the Government of California really the customer and not the individual government official? California's dollars are buying or not buying whatever software they use and I'd say they have the same right to choose that an individual does. However, the way a State makes a decision is through its legislature. The legislature says we don't want to buy proprietary software and lets its agents, government officials, know that through the bill.
Good god, Michael.
/., it's depressing to see an editor such as yourself bashing an article that endorses the ideological foundations for the Open Source movement. Spewing links to Microsoft FUD and drawing vague connections to ridiculous and oversimplified statements that no one would disagree with in an attempt to bolster such a weak argument might fool some of this community, but not all of us.
O'Reilly makes a *very* important point about forcing governments to use Open Source software: it's morally reprehensible. Quoting from a letter sent to Tim, "If you feel you have to coerce people, it would be better to force them to increase their disclosure. Require officials to document their acquisition critieria, require companies to publish their licensing policies, insist on use of open file formats for publicly accessible documents. That is, increase the flow of information and the range of choices, rather than trying to decrease them. That's what Open Source is supposed to be about - increasing choices, right?"
Moreoever, your criticisms against Tim are as sophomoric as they are transparent:
1."O'Reilly seems to be promoting the agenda of Microsoft's Software Choice campaign. He's a business man; perhaps there's a reason we don't know about." His manner employment is irrelevant - attacking an argument that calls into question the "slippery slope" of using legislation to force a particular subset of software upon a goverment on the grounds that the author of the argument is a businessman is an ad homimen fallacy, not a substantial critique.
2. "Saying "People should be free to keep their papers private" as an argument against government FOI laws is just a stupid strawman, unworthy of further debate." Ok, agreed. Where does Tim say this? Where does this quote come from? The argument O'Reilly has against forcing the government of CA to use Open Source software is that "any victory for open source achieved through deprivation of the user's right to choose would indeed be a betrayal of the principles that free software and open source have stood for" - a point that is very different from some claim to a person's right to privacy.
3. "Governments play by different rules. They need to be fiscally responsible, transparent to the public, and promote the public commonwealth whenever possible." I argue that the public commonwealth is best promoted by protecting what O'Reilly calls "Freedom Zero": "the freedom to offer your work to the world on the terms that you choose, and for the recipients to accept or reject those terms." When you start to force *any* entity to use software, you're violating what I perceive to be one of the fundamental principles of the Free software movement.
4."Whatever his motives, his lame arguments are no reason to stop pushing for governments to use Free or Open Source software wherever possible." Pushing for governments to use Free/Open Source software is fine, but O'Reilly's "lame arguments" boil down to the simple notion that "This last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason."
Although I've come to expect the mentality of least resistance here at
As Fight Club said, "sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken." Thanks for the proof, Michael.
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience
There are lots of examples of Open Source sw being used in the government. It's already used by NASA on the International Space Station and on various SpaceFlight experiments such as Flight Linux . The NERSC also works with Linux and provides M-VIA which is an implementation of Virtual Interface Architecture (VIA) for Linux. The above are but just a few places in government where Open Source sw is already being used.
The government, as explained in Micheal's text, needs to account for its spending and show transparency...it cannot favor *anybody* or any *product* without justification. Therefore, it is only logical that at this time we find Open Source being used in the Research and Development areas of the government where the flexibility and COST of Open Sw gives it an undeniable advantage.
Everyman dies, not everyman really lives. -W.W
Opensource is good and you know it. There is going to come a time in the distant future when nobody has 500$ to spend on a compiler. Buying Operating Systems we don't need that require us to upgrade to more expensive computer systems that mostly likely we don't use 35% of the functionality it offers.
The government don't need Pentium 4, 2 ghz machines to type documents all day long. A pentium 100 mhz will work just fine. What a waste of money that could be appropriated to families starving out on the streets of most major cities. The government is slow to realize that they are in a vise with propriatary companies like Microsoft. I don't much care
what happens to these companies. They can't manage money and chances are their stock will plummut soon anyhow.
whatever...
Governments play by different rules.
My only concern is that you forgot to define those rules (well, rule). The rule is that government operates by coercion, always and by definition. At the root of all government programs is the barrel of a gun. This is the single most critical fact to understand when talking politics. The private sector does business through voluntary exchange; otherwise they have committed a crime and are prosecuted accordingly. Government is the exact opposite. Government does business by force.
...I couldn't resist...
"communist yes but not in the big red dog way"
Clifford was a communist??
Yes, but no. Open source is more fiscally responsible in that it costs nothing to purchase the actual package, but remember that you still need qualified people to maintain these systems -- and it's questionable whether someone with the necessary experience with the languages that drive open source (who are in much higher demand than VB programmers) would be willing to take a 25% pay cut and the endless grief that a government bureaucracy entails. Transparent to the public, yes, but the public wants transparent government dealings; they could care less if the minutes of a planning committee are written in OpenOffice or MS Word so long as those minutes remain available via Open Meeting Acts and Sunshine Laws. I don't see how putting driver's license records in MySQL IN ITSELF (I'm not arguing security, features, etc., I'm just arguing software containers) makes government more transparent than putting the same data in MS SQL Server. As for "promote the public commonwealth," I can see that, but the "slippery slope" argument looms. Will the citizenry start passing initiatives requiring PHP-driven web sites over JSP? No, esp. since 99% of voters think PHP is an illicit drug. But, government regulation of software is a potential. A legislature could be lobbied to restrict crypto. Citizen initiatives could pop up requiring that texts be in a common, easy-to-use, accessible format -- specifying MS Word or Adobe PDF.
At a time when we're mired in a recession and our fundamental rights are being stripped by an overzealous attorney general, a clueless group of rubes known as Congress, and the deep lobbying pockets of the RIAA and MPAA, this initiative is quixotic. If we're going to be politicizing open source, shouldn't we be getting the American public riled up about the possibility that the home taping laws are in jeopardy and that if the MPAA and RIAA have their way you'll be paying $5 just to time-shift "CSI"?
I'm a strong supporter of open source, esp. in government, but I'm with O'Reilly. This is a bad bill. Restricting freedom of choice is something never to be taken lightly.
It is about license choice, and ultimately whether the government should be able to require licenses that allow them to switch vendor.
Do you think that, in the long run, it is a good idea for a government to become dependent on software that you can only be supported and upgraded by a single vendor?
Or do you believe that, in the long run, the government is better of with software where it can choose the best supplier of support and upgrades, and switch supplier if the old one doesn't do a good job, or raises prices unresonably?
If you believe the answer to the later question is "yes", you should support policies (or "laws") that require such licenses.
maybe this is the article the community needs to prove to ESR and RMS that their fanaticism is getting the community nowhere.
o'reilly is a smart man. i couldn't believe one of the gnu hippies actually tried to claim the gpl was more free than the bsd/x11/mit license that tim advocated (article a few months ago).
vodka, straight up, thank you!
The notion of requiring all software used by the government to be open source seems to be going a little too far. The problem as I see it is that some software is simply not available as open source and is needed to get their work done. On occasion the government does get stuff done and nobody benefits from making it harder for that to happen. Having said that, I think that requiring the government to make use of open source make sense if handle more reasonably.
Any software custom written for government use must be open source. Companies unwilling to open up their source code will likely find many new competitors perfectly happy to take those big government checks.
Any software that is a boxed purchased product from a retail store or what have you is fair game either way with one caveat. All documents created by this software that are for public consumption must use open formats. So the government can use Office if it's the best tool for the job, but they should be saving in plain text, RTF, etc.
My thinking is that the ongoing cuts into government budgets will encourage use of open source without need of government mandate. The only exception being in the realm of custom written software which I think should be open source because it opens up future enhancement of the software to competitive bids. There should also be some mandates about the clarity of the code, etc (an open source mandate means jack all if somebody can just crank their code through an obfuscator).
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Well put O'Reilly! Its about choice. We should not be forcing people to use open source any more than Microsoft should force people to use MSWindows or MSOffice.
People used to say microsoft was guilty of promoting freedom to choose only if you chose microsoft. seems imitation is the best form of flattery.
Tim sure is the man. Not The Man, the man.
I think it's funny as hell to see a two bit hack like michael take on someone who's been around longer, knows a whole hell of a lot more about the open source movement, and is an all around cooler guy than he could ever be.
I'm slightly perturbed by the almost zealot-like pro-OSD slant of this article. While Open Source software in some cases is a better idea than proprietary source, you must realise that the majority of the desktop users in governments are trained to use Microsoft Windows and products. Full switching to Linux or other open source alternatives would take money for training. I don't suppose you've taken into account how much this would cost?
Additionally, the government does in fact use Linux. At least the Canadian government does... many of our servers run on Linux boxes as they are superior to the NT 4.0 boxes we also run for desktop applications.
The government never simply listens to corporate America. It chooses between products to determine which is better, and if the efficiency-conveniency comparison merits changing products. You see, changing to Linux would mean a need to replace all the applications on computers with those for the new OS. An OS is like a toolkit... while Linux may be a very cost-efficient alternative to the MS OS and their applications, is switching and having to install software on EVERY SINGLE COMPUTER really efficient?
These are the questions that the governments deal with. It's not simply 'the corporations are playing hardball'. If it was all about money, the government would simply switch to Open Source programs exclusively. I myself have no problem with going for training, and if it means that money could be spent elsewhere, I'd be all for a complete switch. However, you must realise that this is in many cases not logistically possible, as sad as this may be.
You can't seriously think that IBM became an open source company because they wanted to feel good about it? They want to make money, and they know they can do so by promoting open source software.
Most large companies don't use any major software packages, say the accounting software they use, out of the box. They pay someone to customize it to fit their needs. That service still needs to be performed, even for open source software.
There is no requirement that this customized version have it's source distributed to the world, unless the software is going to be distributed. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but GPL doesn't make you release changes you make for your own use. Only if you want to distribute your version do you have to make the source available to everyone else. If you want to sell your changed version, then you can negotiate some other license, at least potentially.
We are talking about the government here, and it seems only fair that softeware developed for the government, which we paid for (remember taxes), be available for us to use. When they buy a road, by having a contractor build it, they do it so we can drive on it. Why not software as well?
P.S. Data format standardization is a great idea, why don't you talk to Microsoft about it, they don't seem to be responding to the rest of us about it.
I'm with michael on this one. The state is accountable to the public, and should use that belongs to the public. Opaque, proprietary software cannot be reviewed by any citizen to guarantee security, robustness, or freedom from unrequested transmission of information to companies.
"Software Choice" is a campaign by the private sector to intervene in the internal procurement policies of the state via lobbying and propaganda. If proprietary software companies can create licenses which dictate the legal terms under which their products may or may not be sold and used, certainly the government should have the right to dictate the legal terms under which it will buy software.
IANAL, but I would assume that the government already has laws in place which would prevent certain frivolous purchases such as buying products or services obviously well above market value. Otherwise we could only hope that $600 hammers and toilets seats are anomalies. The same principle should apply to proprietary software, which by its nature tends to be priced well above its market value.
Where a mature free software solution is not available (arguably the case in RDBMS's), a staged migration path could be mandated, and the development could be contracted, sold once, and secure maintenance and support by the best bid. This is what Dr. Villanueva's bill has in mind. Selling software in widgets is an enormous waste of taxpayers' money, as in the Flordia DOT's purchase of M$' Licensing 6 contract.
Open file formats and protocols are not sufficient to avoid vendor lock-in. Without full access to the code (for use and modification, not just audit), the customer is put in the position to solve problems in current versions of software by purchasing upgrades -- at the customer's own expense.
No one is force to sell proprietary software. If a company wants to sell software to the government, it can sell a non-proprietary version that respects basic democratic principles, and hawk its privately-controlled wares to the private sector.
Nothing like teaching him a lesson with a good slashdotting!
I'm not one to favor proprietary software, but I think one of the big misconceptions is that if a company goes bust, all of its customers are necessarily screwed. This may be the case with users of shrinkwrap licensed software, which is almost always immediately replaceable. Think, for example, what would happen if Opera went under. You'd get another browser.
However, for companies and governments using real software that is licensed for megabucks, they almost always (or should always) use Source Escrows. This means that they get the right to use the source code to keep using the software in the event that the company providing the software goes under. This is quite common, and vitiates all (most) of the "what about if your vendor goes bankrupt" cries you always hear on Slashdot.
A law that requires goverment to use Open Source computer software for security is a damn good idea, and does not in any way rule out propriatery software. In fact, I think all software companies should be required to publish source code, just the same as you expect packaged food to include an ingredients list, Restaurants to disclose what was used to prepare your meal, drugs to disclose what medical drugs a pill contains.... Etc Etc. for much the same reasons... There is no (IMNSHO)good reason for keeping source code secret. Copyright and licensing laws still apply.
Does the public have a RIGHT to know the government's network infrastructure? Does the public have a RIGHT to know what data is on every civil servant's hard drive?
I realize this is a rhetorical question, but, using the justification of those monitoring *my* communications at work, I would say the answer is a most definite yes, particularly to the first question.
The arguments of "state secrecy" are only defensible if a) we don't care what our government does or b) we don't want to know what our government does. As I spend the first five months of every year supporting an organization that allegedly functions in my interest, I feel I have every right to know--at every depth, well beyond FOIA--what that organization is doing.
Now, you talk about the cost to the taxpayer, but when you're spending billions on things that blow up (where's the ROI in *that*?), that argument is shaky at best. I think the infrastructure could be refitted at the expense of a few less missles, while eliminating the secondary (Microsoft/Oracle/IBM) tax of proprietary software.
O'reilly called Peru "great theatre", which makes you wonder just how commited to openness he is--they expect accountability out of their government down there. By taking this stand, he seems to imply that doin' bidness should take precedence over the REAL openness of a people demanding that their government not take corporate payoffs in software contracts, etc.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
I don't think each individual office have the means to understand the long time consequences of the legal restrictions for a given license restriction. Mostly, they want something that solves the local problem *now*. Also, acting as a whole the government has a lot more clout in negotiating license terms than any individual office.
I agree that individuals should have the freedom to enter into whatever software license they wish. It does not automatically follow that government employees should be able to enter into any kind of license on our behalf.
The question is whether it is good public policy to make free software licenses mandatory in public procurement. This is a debatable matter, but one principle is clear to me, at least: a private individual may freely dismiss the effect of his actions on the public good, but a public servant has a higher obligation to work for the good of the public.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Let's just make this simple. Make it a rule that the government cannot do business with anybody that is a monopoly. That kills off the big shark in the pond, and opens up the game for competitors of all colors to compete. If open source is truly the best, then it will win in the market place. Doesn't need a law to protect it.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
'No one should be forced to choose open source, any more than they should be forced to choose proprietary software.'
Michael, you're being way too hard on Tim O'Reilly: I think he's enunciated an important moral principle here. You wouldn't think a professional business man would be the one to finally state the principle of absolute anarchy so clearly and succinctly, but how could you do much better than "no one should be forced to do x, any more than they should be forced to do not x? This is especially brave since Tim's business becomes irrelevant: no one should be forced to obey the boss, any more than they should be forced to ignore the boss.
I mean, with this principle, the legal choices of the government about free software really become irrelevant: no one should be forced to follow the law, any more than they should be forced to break the law.
In fact, pretty much everything becomes irrelevant. No one should be forced to respect the public interest, any more than they should be forced to ignore the public interest. Heck, no one should be forced to build good, cheap software, anymore than they should be forced to build shoddy, overpriced software.
In short, nobody should be prevented from doing evil, any more than they should be prevented from doing good.
--po8, who thinks that nobody should be forced to listen to pseudo-philosophical drivel any more than they should be forced to spew pseudo-philosophical drivel.
What? its already politized with the various licenses and the different approaches from different unices like bsd vs linux vs system v. Where is the concern should lie is the balkazation that we have seen in the last two years from united linux, debian, and redhat. This is open source biggest threat. If there was a common goal, a common aproach that we need to take in order to proceed
Transparancy should be a stated goal of government, but the path there is vast and rocky. Migration is costly and time consuming.
I hope they are doing the NRA thing. Move to one extreme side and then shift to the middle to show that you are "being reasonable."
Transparency, cost cutting, sharing, fighting waste, and increasing reuse are worthy goals, but there must be a process for exception (not exemption except in National Security Matters) to ease the pain of transition.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
I have to agree, legislation that forces people to choose one type of sofware is not a good idea, since one day the tables might get turned. It is similar to legislating a national religion, which is fine as long as the "Fundamental Whackos" are not in power.
However I do understand the angst in the Open Source community against Microsoft, Palladium, and bad legistlation like the DMCA. The real question is should we allow ourselves to become as ruthless as companies like Microsoft who squish, crush, and steal from anyone who even remotely looks like a threat?
Does the Open Source Community really want to become what it despises or is it really a last ditch effort at survival?
Myself, I am trying to adopt the "agnostic IBM" view of the world and give people the best tool for the job, which usually offers a good blend of Open Source and proprietary software. I have learned a lot from watching IBM and, just by IBM "giving customers a choice" as opposed to ramrodding solutions, they have become Microsoft's enemy #1.
One important thing that Open Source/GNU/Linux has going for it, is the mere fact "it's cool". Also, chicks dig that cute little penguin because Tux is sooo cute.
Microsoft is currently not envogue or cool, except for maybe the XBOX, which I refuse to buy until it can run Linux. Let's face it, Bill Gates (the lead software architect of Microsoft) can't even explain their coolest product called ".NET" which doesn't even have a cute animal to represent it. In fact, ".NET" sounds downright anti-cute and anti-environmental.
Personally, I think if Bill Gates had any ballz, that he would quit Microsoft and start a new company that competed agaist Microsoft and introduced even more chaos and choice into the market.
Speaking of choice, I went down and looked at the new Apple Mac this week. That dual processor beast with the 16:9 aspect ratio LCD panel is just incredible and it even comes with all my favorite UNIX tools installed. I was so WoW'ed that I might buy one soon; WHY? because the Mac is now a mix of proprietary and Open Source which "GIVES ME A CHOICE!" and a darn good looking hardware solution wrapped in clear acrylic.
Dont bother the government with what software they should use - let them use the best, period. Dont over-emphasize transparency or a government can never function effectively... Cassanova
I never said IBM went to open source to "feel good" about it. Rather, they see open source as just _another_ means to an end: selling hardware and consulting services.
It was a good move for IBM, and a boost to open source as well -- but IBM is a far greater beneficiary of open source than a contributor (even though they have contributed quite a lot, too -- I wouldn't disparage their contributions).
Yes, we're talking about the government, but not about software they are DEVLEOPING, but USING. Just because the government licenses MS Office doesn't mean the rest of us (the taxpayers) get a free copy, too..
Exactly why isnt Michael quitting slashdot then, since slashdot is the spawn of the evil proprietary software producing VA.
Sheesh, talk about integrity.
And while we are at it, if a proprietary piece of software with an OPEN FILE FORMAT was used to get me my refund or license or whatever faster, so be it. Let the people who actually do the work choose the best tool for the job.
The Inscrutable Gargoyle
While many would advocate Open Source (and they should) they tend to forget some common issues that business and government need to consider. Please, for the sake of legitimate arguments take a course or grab a book (or pay Gartner.com a crap load of money like I do :( ) to get concise, focused, and expert information on the Total Cost of Ownership. Every single TCO analysis that I have run Microsoft is still cheaper than Linux, and as far as the office suites are concerned Open Office is great, but still far from an effective, and as far as TCO is concerned cheaper, alternative to MS Office 2k. Oddly the last TCO I ran Office XP fell flat on it's face cost wise versus Office 2K. Translation, Office XP is crap compared to 2K. Sounds like the ME vs. 98SE blunder.
;)
Tim as a business man looks at things that are beyond just the performance of a product. In TCO things like, Time to Train, availability of support, SLA accountability, and system maintence is a factor. When I did a TCO od Windows 2K and Linux last year the document to summarize Linux and Windows 2K EACH was over 100 pages long! That is just the summaries. Then after distilling those two documents down and comparing the final report was 327 pages long (There are about 100 pages of charts and graphs btw.) Could you imagine the figures that a conversion to Open Source would generate? If just comparing the OS systems generates 100+ pages of factors imagine what more complex solutions (database systems, office suites, etc..) would factor. OS TCOs are easier to generate then application TCOs.
A friend of mine, Bob D.(God rest his soul), was an IT manager of sorts for United Defense. One day we argued about Linux being better than Windows. He brow beat me that day with the difference between applications when you run them through a TCO. He taught me how to see things through a TCO perspective and gave me a few choice phrases to remember.
---------->
Assume that your users don't handle change well. In fact assume that they are as smart as a 5 year old just to be safe. They're not, but hell it can't hurt to plan that way.
Regardless of how superior a product appears there are always flaws lurking within. Humans are flawed, humans make software. Hence software WILL have flaws. You better have a way to fix em. (+ for Open Source, sorta)
Never short change support contracts, they save you money.
Someone needs to be accountable for the software if things go wrong. If you don't have a support contract all eyes will be on you.
There are no garuntees in software unless you have an SLA. Get one!
Remember that time is money, not just yours, but each and every end user that uses the software, those that support the software, those that have to implement the software in the network, etc. While you might find it easy, the 5 year old may not.
There are 10 year olds with MCSEs for a reason. Go find me a 10 year old Linux Guru. Microsoft experts are plentiful and cheap. Linux experts tend to cost 20% to 40% more per hour.
Microsoft gives me free shirts and pens. Still waiting for Linus to send me something.
People cannot protest Microsoft's mascot, PETA will protest the Penguin (exploitation I'm sure) once Linux starts to make money.
---------->
While the last two were funny the prior ones have a good amount of truth in them.
When looking at software, better isn't always cheaper, cheaper isn't always better, and until the Open Source community, Linux community, come to understand the business side of the issues all the ranting and raving and post on how evil MS is will not help. Open Source must focus on the business of making software. I have only found out of the HUNDRED of THOUSANDS of Open Source products a few dozen that have made it into business sucessfully.
Flame away but you cannot ignore how businesses think, and that is the Open Source's communities biggest flaws, businesses feel that we are a bunch of 16 year old kids pissed at the new "Man" and lack a serious understanding of a business as a whole (Open Source seems to lean to the political left, am I wrong?). I have ranted and digressed too far. Later.
P.S Still begging for a built in spell checker
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
The theory is that the votes make the choice.
If the law is passed, the choice has been made.
O'Reilly is not arguing for freedom of choice.
He is arguing that one choice is bad, and the
alternative is better. He is wrong about that,
obviously, as should be no surprise considering
that he makes such an silly lapse of reasoning
as to confuse making a choice with giving up the
freedom to choose. It's difficult to reason
correctly if one uses terms in such a bizarre
fashion.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
This is offtopic, but you are confusing two things. One is the principle that security should reside purely in the keys (knowing the algorithm should not let you decrypt stuff), and releasing the details your algorithm helps you find problems quicker. The first point is valid for everybody, military or public, but the second point isn't.
The advantage to publically releasing your algorithm is that in theory you get a lot more people testing its security so you're more likely to find any problems quicker. However, if you're say, the NSA, who employs more mathematicians than any other organization, you don't need that peer review, since your own in-house analysis is going to be superior in pretty much every way.
Further, not releasing an algorithm does improve its security- as long as you're confident it doen't have any horrible flaws (which the military can be). While it is possible to cryptanalyse communications without knowing the algorithm, frankly it's almost impossible in practice. The only thing you can hope for is that the other side made some huge honkin' mistake, which they probably didn't. Also, if you release your fancy new algorithm that nobody can crack, your enemies can use it against you. Remember the military establishment is in the business of protecting their own secrets and finding out everybody else's.
So yes, the security should reside purely in the keys, not the algorithms. But that doesn't mean that blindly telling everybody what algorithm you're using will increase your security (it'll weaken it- you're giving them more information to use)!
Work with me on this:
Let's assume that we're hoping for a world in which open-source and closed-source are given equal consideration based on their respective merits. We currently live in a world where they aren't. To get from our world to the promised land we need to have a revolution of sorts.
Generally, if you want to get a peaceful revolution, you've got to argue on two fronts (or be prepared to wait for a loooooooooooong time). The first front is the reasonable front that calls for equality right now -- ie: the "I have a dream" approach. The second front is the unreasonable front that calls for the oppressed side to turn the tables and make the oppressors become the oppressed -- ie: the "By any means necessary" approach.
You need both, because they compliment each other. The peaceful approach is more likely to be taken seriously if there's a radical approach looming in the background waiting to explode if the peaceful side isn't appeased. The radical approach is more likely to be taken seriously if there's a peaceful approach that can calmly set out the objectives in a non-offensive and non-confrontational manner. Take one away, and you've got trouble.
So, anyway, Michael sort of kind of has a point. If O'Reilly is going to be getting up and giving his two bits, and they're reasonable bits, we'd better make sure that there's a rabid and foaming RMS waiting around somewhere to rally the GNUites into a frenzy if O'Reilly isn't taken seriously.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Well, we are talking about michael here....
-- Argel
Choice is what all of this should be about. I started a big Linux fan, but as the Linux community turned more into a religous movement mandating what to like and what to hate I started losing interest. Now for those and other reason I and a ~BSD fan. More important I live and work in the real world and there is no one correct solution. I use MS products when they make sense for the customer, and Sun or other Unix variants when they are the best choice.
Bottom line, freedom of choice is what is most important.
Although I don't support the DSSA in its current form, I don't think that Tim has ever tried to sell products to the governments and their agencies - I have. Open Source has inherent disadvantages in trying to sell to a government customer. Government often creates lists of "qualified" vendors. These lists often serve as a procurement "menu" the government agencies decide what sofware technologies to implement. Going with off-list technology often requires extra justification and more work on the part of the procurement agency.
The nature of Open Source makes it difficult or impossible to participate in these lists. The regulation simply doesn't mesh well with the OSS paradigm. Look at California Educational List or the Federal Gov't GSA and try to imagine an Open Source project trying to qualify for a slot on those lists. Even if an Open Source business does qualify itself to the list, none of the other businesses offering service or support qualify - removing a key advantage of Open Source -- multi-vendor competition over support of the same product.
I do think some sort of "Consider Open Source First" software procurement policy is in order. Either that, or a gov't office to specifically qualify Open Source projects to these procurement lists.
O'Reilly seems to be promoting the agenda of Microsoft's Software Choice campaign. He's a business man; perhaps there's a reason we don't know about.
Yes! A business man! He must be evil!
He's been deceiving us all along. We should have know he wasn't one of us, one of the chosen.
Heretic! Burn him! Burn him!
Only when the world is rid of businessmen/corporations/greed will I be able to get the food/music/girls/sex I deserve. And maybe the pimples will disappear, too -- yes, I'm sure of it!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"from the time-to-get-out-the-lart dept."
:) Seriously here, what is gained by bashing a (in my opinion a correct standpoint) on the open source community, made by respectable source? For open source to gain ground we do need to lobby, but to force our standards (be them open or closed) it makes us no better than what we fighting against.
Um, if your going to be giving up O'Reilly books can I have them?
is a consulting company and should be valued as such.
Nothing wrong with that.
Of course your product is billable hours, not software. Your competition is Arthur Anderson not Microsoft. Your scalability is limited by the laws of billable hours and not product development.
Two different models. The MS model is not wrong -- it's different and much more lucrative.
It is about whether it is sometimes a good idea to depend on a single vendor for support and upgrades not.
If you don't think that is a good idea, you should make it a policy to require a free software license for the software you purchace. This is true no matter whether you are an individual, a corporation, or a government.
However, the larger you are, the more likely it is that vendor independence for support and upgrades will benefit you, as alarge customer is more likely to be able to find a new vendor.
I live in a republic where my representatives govern me.
The last thing I want is a democracy where every Tom, Dick and Harry views the internal workings of the code. Please no. Aren't we ineffecient enough?
No one should be forced to use free/open source software just because it's free/open. It would be an enormous hipocrisy to not allow people to choose what they want to use and force them to use free software instead.
However, the government is a special market, one that should be entitled to a lot more control to the software it uses. So even though I don't think the government should be forced to use opensource software, at least it should be entitled to some warranties by the software vendor (whether the software is proprietary or not).
Because of matters of national security and sovereignty, governments should have some special rights to know what exactly the software does and how. Simply trusting the software developer is not enough, not when you are responsible for millions of people.
Some Open Source detractors say that peer code review is a myth and that no one has the time to do it anyway. The government has full time programmers who can and do audit internal software. They can audit OSS just as well. It is negligent to wait for your proprietary software manufacturer to release "HotFix #9182" when you can fix the bug yourself (especially if it exposes risks to national security).
So for vital government computer systems, using open source is a matter of national security. As for the bureacratic offices -- it's true they don't "need" OSS.
michael: not only are the more sane & rational posters here out to get you, but so is doubleclick. this is what i saw when i clicked "Read More" (sorry about the quality, i tried =\ ). no joke.
i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
1) your whole assessment about the foundations of freedom is completely off. /. as a soapbox by which you mold the opinions of /. kidz, shame on you.
2) you're using
"This above all, to thine own self be true"
Slashdot editors eat their own best friends.
Details at 11:00.
O'Reily has been balanced and well thought out. Apologize now Michael for the accusation (in very poor taste) and let us get on with life. The more industry heavyweights you tick off the less that will find it in their hearts to even consider your message -- good or bad.
Can a product win in spite of the people representing it? Perhaps--but's it's usually easier to sell it than it is to cram it down peoples throats. Better PR.
...so up yours.
The government both purchases shrink wrapped software, and has software customized/developed for them. The proposals everyone is talking about would impact both. The software the government is using makes a difference. I have seen companies standardize on a word processor because it was the one the FAA had decided to use. How much more impact would a more widespread standardization have?
If the government was using open source software, and made file interchange capability a requirement for everyone the deal with, then everyone would support standardized formats. This is a case where the only way to standardize file formats is for someone with enough clout (say the Federal Government) to mandate it.
I really support the idea of choice in their software purchases for individuals. The government has other responsibilites, and making information interchange possible is (or should be) one of them.
"If open source is better, then let it *compete*. If free (price) and open source still aren't enough to persuade users to switch, then maybe it's not yet as good as its proponents claim it is, and maybe that's where they should focus their energies."
/giddy laugh/ you had better get some laws to do it!
I agree that the best tool for the job should be used. However in the case of Government, Competetion will not always (read usually) find it.
In Business if a company does not use the best tool for the job they lose business, money and or go out of business. This assures that the best tool for the job will (eventually) get used.
Governments aren't businesses. This will not work for them. there are really only two things that shape Government choices. Politics, and laws. So unless you want to trust politics to find the best tool for the job,
(not implying that Open Source is the best tool in all cases (yet) though)
Government must use standards compliant software:
1. Software must store data in an open patent/royalty free standard format and be useable by any other software.
2. Software that must interoperate, should be able to do so without preference to a specific vendor. i.e. follow open and patent/royalty free communication standards.
3. Software, depending on its application, must be demonstratedly secure by:
- making it the law that a security flaw for software running on government systems must be fixed (no: "but you can buy our new later version full of features you don't need")-- for a reasonable fee if appropriate.
- a vendor shall be liable for refusing to disclose vulnerabilities their software has that have not been addressed in a timely fasion.
- having been the subject of independent review and analysis.
4. Portable software that is available on more than one platform must be given precedence over software that can only operate on one platform.
5. Companies who fail to support software, or refuse to or have gone bankrupt, should in their contract have clauses that force the code to their software made open-source so that the goverment may have somebody else support their system.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Anyone who has spent any time listening to the Technetcast archives will know that Tim O'Reilly is not someone you discard just because they are saying something you don't want to hear. He has better open source credentials than 99% of the people who will weigh into this discussion, even if we darkly suspect he is feeding his family on the side. I've done nothing in my life as a computer programmer to compare with what Tim has contributed.
And Tim is making a point here which is 100% correct. The label "open source" is not an acceptable substitute for what we are really trying to achieve. If it did happen that governments such as Peru enacted these policies, it would certainly be a victory for accountable government and the democratic process (at least between the state and its citizens, which is NOT the sum total of what democracy requires).
The lame argument here is the last paragraph of the slashdot submission. I know exactly what lame means in that paragraph: "I don't want to think that hard about difficult issues, so chalk it all up to hidden agendas, name the villians, and move along". If Tim O'Reilly's open source credentials are subject to this kind of aspersion, whose only sin so far is to give serious consideration to the political reality of taking an immoderate stance on the traditions of goverment since America was founded, there isn't a business person alive whose integrity means anything at all to the open source community.
Sure it's annoying to see Tim throw out these unpleasant thoughts half digested. But that's what he does: he creates forums for really smart people to think and speak about difficult issues.
I don't know the right answer to this question. The problem is too difficult to think through in one day, or even one year.
We need a notion along the lines of "government product" which encompasses everything they do on behalf of the public (memos, e-mail, publications, databases, registries, etc.) and mandates that all of this goverment product is fully exposed in representations supported and validated by freely available, open source code. Once you have this in place, the open source community can implement every system of government, and then we need to win the arguments over cost justification of taxpayer dollars. And maybe at the end of the day we find we are actually doing the right things for the right reasons after all.
I know that many people in this forum won't get past the fact that Tim has said something ugly. For those of you who sometimes stop to think about the unpleasant, this is one of those times to step back, take a hard look, and admit that the world doesn't always offer the easy paths we'd prefer to follow. Tim had the courage to do this, so should we.
Why is this all being viewed as the government making only one choice, or "restricting" themselves? The government -- and everyone else -- does this all the time. It's called a requirement. When Boeing and Lockheed competed for the Stealth Bomber contract, did they complain that the government was restricting themselves to only use planes with low radar profiles? No, it was a requirement for the contract.
"Getting the job done" can mean more than processing a document. If you also require that you have open standards, the ability to check code for backdoors and security issue, and that your choice of software now doesn't lock you in to a particular vendor in the future -- are these not merely requirements which, like all other requirements you might have, result in some software not being eligible due to failing to meet these requirements? Restricting yourself to only those things which fullfill your needs is not insane, it is superlatively rational.
What you think using open source software has to do with making available the contents of a civil servant's hard drive I can't fathom, which is why I didn't really address that part.
The enemies of Democracy are
One fundamental problem with open-source zealotry is the assumption that in every possible case, open-source software is better than any proprietary alternative. This has a nasty tendency to piss off regular users ("Why are you forcing this on me? I liked my Windows just fine.") and less zealous OSS advocates (who are trying very hard to convince people that we Free Software types are capable of being reasonable).
What the government needs to do is a detailed cost-benefit analysis for each major software purchase. Linux is cheaper to run in some cases, but the fact is, you need to retrain people to use new software, and they can often get bogged down if said software isn't of as high quality as the commercial software they were originally using. Microsoft Office has its annoyances, but is still (in my experience) generally a better office suite than Open/StarOffice.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. They decision shouldn't be made for government organizations. It should just be an educated decision made by engineers and regular users, as opposed to managers who have just been impressed by salesmen.
Considering administration time and cost of administration, it could very well be cheaper to run one Win2k box with IIS than to run one Solaris box with Apache, or BSD with Apache, or ($diety forbid), Linux running Apache...
You have spent time and money developing software. You have made money selling it to businesses and various government agencies. You pay taxes to the government some of which goes to pay people to create software which can put you out of business. Something to think about.
Is this not similar to MicroShafts' "use my 'product', or else" tactic? Locking anybody or any government into a particular liscense usage is the opposite of the word "open", and it's intetions. This legislation merely opens the door for proprietary software companies to propose similar bills, based on this prescident.
I love Linux, and use it at home on my only desktop machine, but I would never want to force someone to use it.
... it is merely an attempt to force opennenss on government, to protect citizen's access to information irrespective of what operating system or user software they use, be it Free Software, Apple, or, God forbid, Microsoft.
I love democracy, and use it at home, but I would never want to force someone to use it, unless they are my government.
This is about transparency in government, and the assurance that public documents (birth certificates, deeds, tax rolls, etc.) are as accessible in 50 years as they are today, and not held hostage by anyone, be it Microsoft or RMS.
It isn't enough to have open data storage formats, because transparency also requires that we know what is being done with the data in question. This becomes a particularly potent issue if software is ever used for voting, choosing who is drafted should the draft ever be reinstated, choosing who is audited by the IRS, or, as another mentioned, defining how our personal information is protected from others.
Transparency can not be achieved in any of these areas unless the source code is available and open to public scruitiny.
Microsoft lackeys and their moderation points aside, Michael and his sometimes over the top rhetoric aside, Tim O'Reilly is simply wrong on this issue, as are all those who advocate "choice" for those who have power over the rest of us.
Our government doesn't get to choose if and when it would like to exchange democracy for autocracy. It should not get to choose if and when it would like to exchange openness and accessibility to information for proprietary software and data formats. Stick with the latter, and you end up with fiascos like the NOAA[1].
I am simply amazed that so many people think this is trying to force OSS or Free Software on 'everybody.' Nothing could be farther from the truth
[1]where you have to pay $100 or more for a $3 CDROM of all the marine charts that were made with your tax dollars, because some politician/beuarocrat signed a sweetheart deal giving a private company exclusive rights to resell our public data.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Besides, it's not like this is an actual attempt to promote more secure, cost-effective software. In the end this is just a tool to try and wedge better pricing and terms out of Microsoft. Been done before.
New Shimmer is both!
Please keep in mind that RedHat, IBM, MandrakeSoft and Linux International are among those backing the legislation. Make sure that those idiots don't get any of your money.
Besides, I thought that RedHat and IBM had closed source software. Am I wrong?
It will just piss people off..
What if the government is forced into using open source software which could be inadequate for the job (think about OpenOffice on low-end machines), and then think about employees cursing "that damn open source system" because they're forced to use it.
No one likes to be forced in a trend they don't want to follow.
Using the law to force OSS through is just lame and is completely contrary to the spirit of the movement, IMHO.
Semantics is the gravity of abstraction
There are quite a few people getting far too uppity about this. And while it is a goal worth taking political action over, I think one of the core problems with the Open Source movement is the fact that we don't know when to back down. Our collective character wants to resolve the problem, crush the "evil bad guys" (Microsoft and proprietary giants) and save the future of computing for people everywhere - seriously, it's our mindset. We grew up watching star wars and star trek, right? As a movement we've been overcome by the blindness and fervor that we decry in the corporations and government we struggle against.
If we truly want freedom, we should be fighting for the freedom to choose - the freedom to pick the best tool for the job. The freedom to use open source if it is better, or to pick proprietary software if it's the best tool for the job. Passing bills mandating the use of open source in the government takes away the freedom of the government to do its job as efficiently as possible. We're taking away from their freedom. Using the exact same method that the MPAA, RIAA, and other corporate entities make use of things like the DMCA to impact our own freedom. And what's the point of inflicting one "freedom" on the government just to take away another?
Arguing that open source software or free software has a lower cost of ownership than proprietary software is likewise useless.
Why?
Example: If Microsoft gave away Windows 2000 for free, that wouldn't make it 'better' than it is now. It might make it more palatable but it won't improve the software. Likewise, if Microsoft made the source available for Microsoft Word, that wouldn't necessarily make it capable of handling the latest file formats. It may be that modifying Word is more work than it's worth.
With open source applications, just because you have the ability to modify it to suit your needs, doesn't mean you can (or want to) modify it. Example: Just because you _can_ modify an open source 'office suite', doesn't mean you have the people in your organization you have the expertise to modify it well. If you are forced to use the open application, you either have to use the limitations, modify the source by hiring people who can do that, or submit requests and wait for the feature. With proprietary or closed software you have to submit requests and wait, but in those cases, you very often have a contract with the vendor that allows you to pressure them to put in features you want/need (you == government in this case). Many corporations use proprietary software, not because it's the best thing out there, but rather because the contract they get with the vendor is better. A certain unnamed company decided to use a certain unnamed product after the employees of said company vehemently opposed said product because the vendor of the product was willing to bendover backwards and kiss ass.
No company (or government) is going to hire people to do work (and take on the HR overhead of those people when they can get a contract with a third party that is willing to do everything under the sun to please that company.
Do you really think open source developers or free software developers would be willing to do everything under the sun to please a company or government, just to make sure that their software is used? No.
The real question isn't whether or not open source software or free software is better than proprietary software or closed source software. The real question is whether or not politicians are willing to lose the lucrative contributions from vendors of proprietary/closed software.
come on! would ya use photoshop or gimp? there you go! there are times when closed-source software fulfils the purpose best.
nuc134r m4n
Alot of people here seem to be pouncing on the idea that such laws would require the gov't to use OSS / FS even when it is not the best solution. Though I'd argue that in most cases -- overall -- it is, it's possible that it may not be the best solution. So, yes, this law would force the government to occasionally use software which wasn't the best solution.
But there are other things at play here than the best solution to a problem: namely, a core value to any Democracy -- transparency. Proprietary software decreases transparency, OSS / FS / public domain software increases it. I'd also argue that the gov't can use software which is "source for free to dist/change/whatever, but pay to use". This still preserves that basic principal of transparency.
I know there are some of you here who insist that this is "affirmative actions for software". I disagree. This is mandating moral character in the software that our government uses. Don't laugh. A person without moral character -- i.e., a crook -- will have difficulty getting a job. Software can also have a moral character; in this case, it certainly does. In the government, software which is open preserves transparency has moral character, whereas that which does not is does not have moral character.
If you still have problems with this, it most likely comes back to the idea that "the best software should be chosen". While I think that the licensing should be considered in deciding what's the best software, lets ignore that for now. Lets say that a proprietary product is the best. So what? The government has lots of money, and can easily take an open piece of software and make it the best for the job. This would ultimately save the government money. Alternatively, it could buy the rights to the "best product" from the owner, then open that product up.
The question then, is which license should software the government creates/modifies/buys fall under? Well, if its modified GPL code, obviously it has to fall under the GPL. But if they create something from scratch, or buy out a proprietary product, what then? Well, I suggest in all cases -- until the desired license is decided on -- the government stick to the GPL. Why? Because you can change the license on the exact same product from the GPL to OSS (i.e., BSD) to public domain. But you can't change the license on the same piece of software from public domain to BSD to GPL.
Transparency is a key value in any Democratic government, and the more transparent a democracy is, the healthier it is. Conversely, the worst of governments and authorities aren't transparent at all. As an example government, take Iraq, and as an example authority, take ICANN.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
This discussion seem to be instigated by the DSS Act proposed to the Californian federal entity, but I think that this issue is far beyond US govt. policy and is applicable to the general. For that reason I'm feeling free to join this discussion although I'm not American nor I have any interest in California and/or USA.
My opinion on this is that the goverment must enforce open standards and protocols and not to choose the licencing type of the software. The aims are those: to do the job in the most efficient way (this includes the TCO as well!), and to enable the public view of all the relevant documents regardless of the systems used. This boils down to usage of publicaly available standards on document formats and protocols and doesn't pose any restrictions on the license type of the software that use these document formats.
However, in the cases where it is necessary to disclose the way some data has been processed, I think it should be mandatory for the government bodies to open the source of the application in question (since it is almost allways some sort of a customized application, this should be no problem). This could be extended to all custom-written software in use by the government.
The other reason for the use of open standards in document formats is the prevention of vendor-locking. Governments should not be put in position that their job depends on the availability of some specialized apps that use closed document format.
"No one should be forced to choose open source, any more than they should be forced to choose proprietary software."
I'm sorry, copyright law here is the force, not open source licenses.
Well, except for the clause in many open source licenses such as the GPL forcing people to reveal their source code.
Well that would rule out the GPL then. It requires that you hand over any modifications to the sourcecode. That IS a restriction. The only true 'free' license would be Public Domain...
Oh and BTW my 2 cents worth...Forced Open Formats for public documents = good. Forced OSS software - Bad. Lets fight on perfomance. M$ (tries to) force companies to use their software, we don't have to.
[Please type your sig here.]
I understand your point, but the government does not need to use Open Source to obtain file interchange capabilities. It simply needs to decide on a standard file format (that is fully published and disclosed, developed at tax-payer expense and freely available to everyone).
:-)
Once the file format has been chosen, then it will be up to the commercial software vendors and open source projects to compete on quality, features, ease-of-use, etc. Government should have as much a choice in software purchases as individuals....
As far as mandates go -- the Feds couldn't really mandate a file format for everyone -- only for government use. This is already achieveable, of course, using XML. All the Feds would have to do is come up with a DTD
LOL, the IRS uses computers to do your taxes? Ok, if you call those room-sized monstrosities in the IRS from the 1950's which still use tape-recorders, then maybe.
Anyways, you claim that if the software the IRS uses to determine audits were OpenSourced, people could scam the IRS, is absurd.
Think configuration files.
I.e., in psuedocode, a section of the program might say:
Conduct audit if:
income > x
AND
taxes paid y
Where the variables x, y, and z would be defined in a configuration file, which would not be released to the public.
Similar problems can be dealth with in a similar way. In either case, the problem isn't with the disclosure of the code itself, but rather certain key values. Its the difference between disclosind the encryption algorithm/software and disclosing one's personal key.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
NOTHING stops ANY software company from purveying open source software, outside their normal business model, that includes Microsoft. So a law forcing use of open source software only prevents government from losing choice to a single software source.
Dawn of the Dead
We certainly need to mandate that the public interfaces be public, even if we don't mandate that the private methods and functions be open.
And it is bad form to place restrictions on what software can be selected; that's a precedent as likely to be turned against us as to work for us. And beside, the Open Source movement doesn't need it.
But even Tim seems to have missed a critical point; software is unlike any other product that an organization can use because software embeds loyalty. A wristwatch can be poor quality, inefficient, overpriced, ineffective, broken, or ijust plain faulty. But a wristwatch cannot be corrupt. It cannot know who it's manufacturer is and alter it's functioning to promote other products by it's manufacturer nor degrade the functions of competitors. But a computer can, and Microsoft has shown both the technical capability and the willingness to use such techniques to promote their own products. In this respect, allowing a Microsoft product to perform a function within our government is the same as allowing a known corrupt politician to hold government office. Other proprietary software products have the potential for such corrupt behavior as well, but they shouldn't be restricted for potential corrupt behavior any more than a candidate should be.
Look, I don't know about you, but I'd be very hesitant to allow a someone known for corrupt behavior in the past and currently facing sentencing on felony anti-trust charges to hold office no matter how much more efficient than the next candidate he might be. It just sets a bad precedent. That's not the kind of government I want to live under.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Mandating open source software in government is horrible. We'd be up in arms screaming bloody murder if someone tried passing a law requiring proprietary software. You'd be one of the first in line to write a lengthy article about how it was a thinly veiled attempt by a large company to squash their competition.
So how is it fair the other way? What makes us so high and mighty? The fact that we're "free," in both senses of the word? I think we start to lose "free as in speech" when we begin passing laws on par with the worst proposals from the RIAA. And without that, we really are just software providers, except with unbeatable prices.
Yes, it would dramatically reduce costs in government computing if we mandate OSS. But that's a choice for them to make at budget time! "Free" doesn't mean "you have to use us!"
I've gained some disrespect for you from this article, Michael. Not only because this policy is flat out wrong, just as wrong as the DMCA, but moreso because of the way you respond to O'Reilly. What has the man done to deserve such a disrespectful response? If you're going to rebut him, do it with some dignity!
So, what color is the sky in your world?
I sure don't. I'd rather my tax money go to hardware and fixing the roads, etc.
Open source software has this wonderful property of not supporting any company's cheap-ass "make money quick" upgrade scheme.
Of course, it might still be the "best tool for the job," does that mean we need to be paying an arm and a leg for it with tax money?
O'Reilly needs to hear from us on this. I think its terrible that he is giving up on open source software. Let him know what you think: tim@oreilly.com Don't let him be bought-off! Email him now!
I work on large, US taxpayer-funded research projects. We gather *huge* amounts of data, and use less than a third of it ourselves. Some of it will eventually be datamined by other projects, and all of it has potential for future researchers. Perhaps in a year or two; perhaps in 20 years. It's that kind of data.
I couldn't actually give a shit about open source vs closed sorce *software* - in a given week I switch back & forth between MacOS, NT, and Linux, and use both proprietary and open source tools on all three depending entirely on what best suits the task is at hand. But having the data I work with in an open format which can be used by multiple tools from multiple vendors across all three of the platforms I use is essential. And in the longer term, making absolutely sure the data I work with is and will remain available to other researchers is critical.
We, the taxpayers, pay for an incredible amount of extremely expensive research, and to deliberately lock the products of this research up in proprietary formats which may not be accessible to later researchers (eg the 1960's census data debacle) is criminal stupidity.
the point is that your tax money is funding oppression of someone you should be caring about the most: YOU. anyone who likes to pay taxes and get lied to keep your eyes closed, maybe ignorance truly is bliss. this "best tool for the job" meme is a sorry excuse for using that thing which separates you from the animals you so desperately want to emulate, your brain. the best tool for the job of governing yourself is to actually DO IT, which means you need to know yourself. if you vest authority in some other party the best tool for their job (of governing you) STILL is to know themselves. bottom line: you don't know jack shit w/ proprietary software.
the secret may be the algorithim and not the key values.
In other words -- perhaps we need to perform audits on 2% of the people who live in BelAir whose income is over x% of the mean or under y% of the mean.
The algorithim, regardless of the percentage, gives you the idea that you need to meet the mean -- not exceed or fall short of it.
Of course if the algorithim also includes "and 4% of the people who meet the mean" you may find that more people don't meet the old mean anymore (the mean will shift, the programmers will change their logic next time through).
when unsound reason yields the best conclusion.
The consequences of legislation to require government agencies to purchase (Open Source|Free) software may be good or bad; I don't wish to make a case for either at the moment. I do think, however, that both Mr. O'Reilly's reasoning, and that of his correspondent, are flawed, and that both characterize the issue badly.
Government agencies are not individuals, with freedoms we regard as inherently worth protecting. Nor do they spend their own money; they spend the money of the people they serve, which in most cases is provided for them by the legislature representing those people.
When the mystery correspondent characterizes these laws as "criminalizing an official' s decision to buy commercial software", and when Mr. O'Reilly characterizes them as the "deprivation of the user's right to choose", they suggest that the people entrusted with the administration of these agencies have some right to spend tax money in the way that they see fit. They do not. Nor is having the legislature hand down policies on what goods agencies acquire anything like having the legislature forbid individuals to write or use P2P software (a comparison made by O'Reilly in the discussion forum). This is not about whether, how, and to what extent the government should regulate the software industry. This is about one way in which the Legislative branch checks the Executive branch.
O'Reilly's pragmatic points, though underdeveloped, are more interesting. Perhaps this is a matter of legislative micro-(mis)management. Perhaps these constraints would seriously impede the ability of many agencies to fulfil their responsibilities. Perhaps this would open up a fight with software corporations that we don't want, or can't win.
I'd much rather Mr. O'Reilly had developed these, as I think his argument from principle falls down flat. If we took it seriously, we'd have Congress able to give money to agencies, without any say in how the money was spent. Unelected officials without constraints on their spending isn't what most people mean by 'political freedom'.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
While I can see O'Reilly and his Anonymous Coward friend's point of view, I think they are missing the big picture. This is not about mandating some kind of software. This is about mandating transparency in government.
We have lived long under the shadow of the cold war. It has been over for more than a decade, and still government secrets are the rule and not the exception. How can we, the citizens, make decisions about government when we do not even know what they are really doing?
Closed standards allow for spyware and weaknesses like viruses. Open standards deal with these things quickly. MS does not fix bugs until they are forced to through embarrassment. Dangerous security flaws in Open Source Software get fixed in as little as 24 hours from a public discovery. Do they want an insecure government? All significant virus attacks in the last 5 years were because MS's software.
Villanueva had another point that is applicable here: This is not a mandate for Linux or FreeBSD. This is a mandate for Open Source Software. If companies like MS want to sell to the government, they can go right ahead. The just have to include their source code with the software they supply. Is this impossible for MS to do? No. It comes down to a decision of whether they want to or not.
Even if they did allow open distribution of their source code, they would not have lost it. They still own the copyright on it and could still claim that anybody using it must pay them royalties. This is not even considered by MS to be an option. MS forgets that the government makes the rules... MS does not. Maybe the monopoly has gone to their heads.
The real reason they do not want to open their code is because they will not be able to embrace and extend and extinguish anything that way. This would mean that MS would have to compete with quality of software (something they know they cannot possibly do).
Finally, no software developed with public money should go to private hands. Why should your tax money go into developing something you have to pay for again? If public money is used, you already paid for it. Requiring Open Source Software just guarantees that the taxpayers get what they pay for.
Therefore, a mandate of this nature would not exclude proprietary software. It would exclude software from manufacturers that did not wish to play by the rules. It would be detrimental to interests wanted to sidestep government rules by keeping secrets or get the government to fund their R&D. It would also be a step toward restoring transparency in government and allow the taxpayers to get a return on their investment. Based on these few arguments (and there are many more), Open Source Software seems to be the only choice for a society that calls itself a democracy.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Looks like O'Reilly and the rest of you reactionaries need another lesson in civic responsibility. So once again, here's the definitive argument from Peruvian congressman Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez. Read it carefully and you might learn a thing or two.
Lima, 8th of April, 2002
To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ
General Manager of Microsoft, Perú
Dear Sir:
First of all, I thank you for your letter of March 25, 2002 in which you state the official position of Microsoft relative to Bill Number 1609, Free Software in Public Administration, which is indubitably inspired by the desire for Peru to find a suitable place in the global technological context. In the same spirit, and convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to the commentaries included in your letter.
While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature (which we will analyse in detail later) you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions.
With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call "open source software" is what the Bill defines as "free software", since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what you call "commercial software" is what the Bill defines as "proprietary" or "unfree", given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service.
It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:
Free access to public information by the citizen.
Permanence of public data.
Security of the State and citizens.
To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indespensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.
To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.
In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.
In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the conditions under which the state bodies will obtain software in the future, that is, in a way compatible with these basic principles.
From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
-the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
-the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
-the law does not specifiy which concrete software to use
-the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought
-the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.
What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of requirements reguarding the license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are very critical aspects for its normal functioning.
We agree, Mr. Gonzalez, that information and communication technology have a significant impact on the quality of life of the citizens (whether it be positive or negative). We surely also agree that the basic values I have pointed out above are fundamental in a democratic state like Peru. So we are very interested to know of any other way of guaranteeing these principles, other than through the use of free software in the terms defined by the Bill.
As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyse them in detail:
Firstly, you point out that: "1. The bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software, that is to say open source software, which breaches the principles of equality before the law, that of non-discrimination and the right of free private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the constitution."
This understanding is in error. The Bill in no way affects the rights you list; it limites itself entirely to establishing conditions for the use of software on the part of state institutions, without in any way meddling in private sector transactions. It is a well established principle that the State does not enjoy the wide spectrum of contractual freedom of the private sector, as it is limited in its actions precisely by the requirement for transparency of public acts; and in this sense, the preservation of the greater common interest must prevail when legislating on the matter.
The Bill protects equality under the law, since no natural or legal person is excluded from the right of offering these goods to the State under the conditions defined in the Bill and without more limitations than those established by the Law of State Contracts and Purchasing (T.U.O. por Decreto Supremo No. 012-2001-PCM).
The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever, since it only establishes *how* the goods have to be provided (which is a state power) and not *who* has to provide them (which would effectively be discriminatory, if restrictions based on national origin, race religion, ideology, sexual preference etc. were imposed). On the contrary, the Bill is decidedly antidiscriminatory. This is so because by defining with no room for doubt the conditions for the provision of software, it prevents state bodies from using software which has a license including discriminatory conditions.
It should be obvious from the preceding two paragraphs that the Bill does not harm free private enterprise, since the latter can always choose under what conditions it will produce software; some of these will be acceptable to the State, and others will not be since they contradict the guarantee of the basic principles listed above. This free initiative is of course compatible with the freedom of industry and freedom of contract (in the limited form in which the State can exercise the latter). Any private subject can produce software under the conditions which the State requires, or can refrain from doing so. Nobody is forced to adopt a model of production, but if they wish to provide software to the State, they must provide the mechanisms which guarantee the basic principles, and which are those described in the Bill.
By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office "suite", under the conditions defined in the Bill and setting the price that you consider satisfactory. If you did not, it would not be due to restrictions imposed by the law, but to business decisions relative to the method of commercializing your products, decisions with which the State is not involved.
To continue; you note that:" 2. The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies..."
This statement is just a reiteration of the previous one, and so the response can be found above. However, let us concern ourselves for a moment with your comment regarding "non-competitive
Of course, in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or service. From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers from the possibility of competing, but does not exclude them "a priori", but rather based on a series of principles determined by the autonomous will of the purchaser, and so the process takes place in conformance with the law. And in the Bill it is established that *no-one* is excluded from competing as far as he guarantees the fullfilment of the basic principles.
Furthermore, the Bill *stimulates* competition, since it tends to generate a supply of software with better conditions of usability, and to better existing work, in a model of continuous improvement.
On the other hand, the central aspect of competivity is the chance to provide better choices to the consumer. Now, it is impossible to ignore the fact that marketing does not play a neutral role when the product is offered on the market (since accepting the opposite would lead one to suppose that firms' expenses in marketing lack any sense), and that therefore a significant expense under this heading can influence the decisions of the purchaser. This influence of marketing is in large measure reduced by the bill that we are backing, since the choice within the framework proposed is based on the *technical merits* of the product and not on the effort put into commercialization by the producer; in this sense, competitvity is increased, since the smallest software producer can compete on equal terms with the most powerful corporations.
It is necessary to stress that there is no position more anti-competitive than that of the big software producers, which frequently abuse their dominant position, since in innumerable cases they propose as a solution to problems raised by users: "update your software to the new version" (at the user's expense, naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for products, which, in the provider's judgement alone, are "old"; and so, to receive any kind of technical assistance, the user finds himself forced to migrate to new versions (with non-trivial costs, especially as changes in hardware platform are often involved). And as the whole infrastructure is based on proprietary data formats, the user stays "trapped" in the need to continue using products from the same supplier, or to make the huge effort to change to another environment (probably also proprietary).
You add: "3. So, by compelling the State to favour a business model based entirely on open source, the bill would only discourage the local and international manufacturing companies, which are the ones which really undertake important expenditures, create a significant number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as contributing to the GNP, as opposed to a model of open source software which tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since it mainly creates jobs in the service sector."
I do not agree with your statement. Partly because of what you yourself point out in paragraph 6 of your letter, regarding the relative weight of services in the context of software use. This contradiction alone would invalidate your position. The service model, adopted by a large number of companies in the software industry, is much larger in economic terms, and with a tendency to increase, than the licensing of programs.
On the other hand, the private sector of the economy has the widest possible freedom to choose the economic model which best suits its interests, even if this freedom of choice is often obscured subliminally by the disproportionate expenditure on marketing by the producers of proprietary software.
In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidising the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money.
In respect of the jobs generated by proprietary software in countries like ours, these mainly concern technical tasks of little aggregate value; at the local level, the technicians who provide support for proprietary software produced by transnational companies do not have the possibility of fixing bugs, not necessarily for lack of technical capability or of talent, but because they do not have access to the source code to fix it. With free software one creates more technically qualified employment and a framework of free competence where success is only tied to the ability to offer good technical support and quality of service, one stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of greater total value and a higher quality level, to the benefit of all involved: producers, service organizations, and consumers.
It is a common phenomenon in developing countries that local software industries obtain the majority of their takings in the service sector, or in the creation of "ad hoc" software. Therefore, any negative impact that the application of the Bill might have in this sector will be more than compensated by a growth in demand for services (as long as these are carried out to high quality standards). If the transnational software companies decide not to compete under these new rules of the game, it is likely that they will undergo some decrease in takings in terms of payment for licences; however, considering that these firms continue to allege that much of the software used by the State has been illegally copied, one can see that the impact will not be very serious. Certainly, in any case their fortune will be determined by market laws, changes in which cannot be avoided; many firms traditionally associated with proprietary software have already set out on the road (supported by copious expense) of providing services associated with free software, which shows that the models are not mutually exclusive.
With this bill the State is deciding that it needs to preserve certain fundamental values. And it is deciding this based on its sovereign power, without affecting any of the constitutional guarantees. If these values could be guaranteed without having to choose a particular economic model, the effects of the law would be even more beneficial. In any case, it should be clear that the State does not choose an economic model; if it happens that there only exists one economic model capable of providing software which provides the basic guarantee of these principles, this is because of historical circumstances, not because of an arbitrary choice of a given model.
Your letter continues: "4. The bill imposes the use of open source software without considering the dangers that this can bring from the point of view of security, guarantee, and possible violation of the intellectual property rights of third parties."
Alluding in an abstract way to "the dangers this can bring", without specifically mentioning a single one of these supposed dangers, shows at the least some lack of knowledge of the topic. So, allow me to enlighten you on these points.
On security:
National security has already been mentioned in general terms in the initial discussion of the basic principles of the bill. In more specific terms, relative to the security of the software itself, it is well known that all software (whether proprietary or free) contains errors or "bugs" (in programmers' slang). But it is also well-known that the bugs in free software are fewer, and are fixed much more quickly, than in proprietary software. It is not in vain that numerous public bodies reponsible for the IT security of state systems in developed countries require the use of free software for the same conditions of security and efficiency.
What is impossible to prove is that proprietary software is more secure than free, without the public and open inspection of the scientific community and users in general. This demonstration is impossible because the model of proprietary software itself prevents this analysis, so that any guarantee of security is based only on promises of good intentions (biased, by any reckoning) made by the producer itself, or its contractors.
It should be remembered that in many cases, the licensing conditions include Non-Disclosure clauses which prevent the user from publicly revealing security flaws found in the licensed proprietary product.
In respect of the guarantee:
As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the "End User License Agreement" of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licencing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered ``AS IS'', that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software.
On Intellectual Property:
Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws. The model of free software in no way implies ignorance of these laws, and in fact the great majority of free software is covered by copyright. In reality, the inclusion of this question in your observations shows your confusion in respect of the legal framework in which free software is developed. The inclusion of the intellectual property of others in works claimed as one's own is not a practice that has been noted in the free software community; whereas, unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietry software. As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity).
You go on to say that: "The bill uses the concept of open source software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily imply that the software is free or of zero cost, and so arrives at mistaken conclusions regarding State savings, with no cost-benefit analysis to validate its position."
This observation is wrong; in principle, freedom and lack of cost are orthogonal concepts: there is software which is proprietary and charged for (for example, MS Office), software which is proprietary and free of charge (MS Internet Explorer), software which is free and charged for (RedHat, SuSE etc Gnu/Linux distributions), software which is free and not charged for (Apache, OpenOffice, Mozilla), and even software which can be licensed in a range of combinations (MySQL).
Certainly free software is not necessarily free of charge. And the text of the bill does not state that it has to be so, as you will have noted after reading it. The definitions included in the Bill state clearly *what* should be considered free software, at no point referring to freedom from charges. Although the possibility of savings in payments for proprietary software licenses are mentioned, the foundations of the bill clearly refer to the fundamental guarantees to be preserved and to the stimulus to local technological development. Given that a democratic State must support these principles, it has no other choice than to use software with publicly available source code, and to exchange information only in standard formats.
If the State does not use software with these characteristics, it will be weakening basic republican principles. Luckily, free software also implies lower total costs; however, even given the hypothesis (easily disproved) that it was more expensive than proprietary software, the simple existence of an effective free software tool for a particular IT function would oblige the State to use it; not by command of this Bill, but because of the basic principles we enumerated at the start, and which arise from the very essence of the lawful democratic State.
You continue: "6. It is wrong to think that Open Source Software is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group (an important investigator of the technological market recognized at world level) has shown that the cost of purchase of software (operating system and applications) is only 8% of the total cost which firms and institutions take on for a rational and truely beneficial use of the technology. The other 92% consists of: installation costs, enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and down-time."
This argument repeats that already given in paragraph 5 and partly contradicts paragraph 3. For the sake of brevity we refer to the comments on those paragraphs. However, allow me to point out that your conclusion is logically false: even if according to Gartner Group the cost of software is on average only 8% of the total cost of use, this does not in any way deny the existence of software which is free of charge, that is, with a licensing cost of zero.
In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that the service components and losses due to down-time make up the largest part of the total cost of software use, which, as you will note, contradicts your statement regarding the small value of services suggested in paragraph 3. Now the use of free software contributes significantly to reduce the remaining life-cycle costs. This reduction in the costs of installation, support etc. can be noted in several areas: in the first place, the competitive service model of free software, support and maintenance for which can be freely contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the grounds of quality and low cost. This is true for installation, enabling, and support, and in large part for maintenance. In the second place, due to the reproductive characteristics of the model, maintenance carried out for an application is easily replicable, without incurring large costs (that is, without paying more than once for the same thing) since modifications, if one wishes, can be incorporated in the common fund of knowledge. Thirdly, the huge costs caused by non-functioning software ("blue screens of death", malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans, exceptions, general protection faults and other well-known problems) are reduced considerably by using more stable software; and it is well-known that one of the most notable virtues of free software is its stability.
ou further state that: "7. One of the arguments behind the bill is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source software, compared with the costs of commercial software, without taking into account the fact that there exist types of volume licensing which can be highly advantageous for the State, as has happened in other countries."
I have already pointed out that what is in question is not the cost of the software but the principles of freedom of information, accessibility, and security. These arguments have been covered extensively in the preceding paragraphs to which I would refer you.
On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in the immediately precding paragraph of your letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than 8% of the total.
You continue: "8. In addition, the alternative adopted by the bill (i) is clearly more expensive, due to the high costs of software migration, and (ii) puts at risk compatibility and interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions of open source software on the market."
Let us analyze your stament in two parts. Your first argument, that migration implies high costs, is in reality an argument in favour of the Bill. Because the more time goes by, the more difficult migration to another technology will become; and at the same time, the security risks associated with proprietary software will continue to increase. In this way, the use of proprietary systems and formats will make the State ever more dependent on specific suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on the contrary migration from one system to another becomes very simple, since all data is stored in open formats. On the other hand, migration to an open software context implies no more costs than migration between two different proprietary software contexts, which invalidates your argument completely.
The second argument refers to "problems in interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector" This statement implies a certain lack of knowledge of the way in which free software is built, which does not maximize the dependence of the user on a particular platform, as normally happens in the realm of proprietary software. Even when there are multiple free software distributions, and numerous programs which can be used for the same function, interoperability is guaranteed as much by the use of standard formats, as required by the bill, as by the possibility of creating interoperable software given the availability of the source code.
You then say that: "9. The majority of open source code does not offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from recognized manufacturers of high productivity on the part of the users, which has led various public organizations to retract their decision to go with an open source software solution and to use commercial software in its place."
This observation is without foundation. In respect of the guarantee, your argument was rebutted in the response to paragraph 4. In respect of support services, it is possible to use free software without them (just as also happens with proprietary software), but anyone who does need them can obtain support separately, whether from local firms or from international corporations, again just as in the case of proprietary software.
On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our analysis if you could inform us about free software projects *established* in public bodies which have already been abandoned in favour of proprietary software. We know of a good number of cases where the opposite has taken place, but not know of any where what you describe has taken place.
You continue by observing that: "10. The bill demotivates the creativity of the peruvian software industry, which invoices 40 million US$/year, exports 4 million US$ (10th in ranking among non-traditional exports, more than handicrafts) and is a source of highly qualified employment. With a law that incentivates the use of open source, software programmers lose their intellectual property rights and their main source of payment."
It is clear enough that nobody is forced to commercialize their code as free software. The only thing to take into account is that if it is not free software, it cannot be sold to the public sector. This is not in any case the main market for the national software industry. We covered some questions referring to the influence of the Bill on the generation of employment which would be both highly technically qualified and in better conditions for competition above, so it seems unnecessary to insist on this point.
What follows in your statement is incorrect. On the one hand, no author of free software loses his intellectual property rights, unless he expressly wishes to place his work in the public domain. The free software movement has always been very respectful of intellectual property, and has generated widespread public recognition of authors. Names like those of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, Miguel de Icaza, Andrew Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Andrea Arcangeli, Bruce Perens, Darren Reed, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, and many others, are recognized world-wide for their contributions to the development of software that is used today by millions of people throughout the world. On the other hand, to say that the rewards for authors rights make up the main source of payment of Peruvian programmers is in any case a guess, in particular since there is no proof to this effect, nor a demonstration of how the use of free software by the State would influence these payments.
You go on to say that: "11. Open source software, since it can be distributed without charge, does not allow the generation of income for its developers through exports. In this way, the multiplier effect of the sale of software to other countries is weakened, and so in turn is the growth of the industry, while Government rules ought on the contrary to stimulate local industry."
This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of licences) is the only possible one for the software industry, when you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one. The incentives that the bill offers for the growth of a supply of better qualified professionals, together with the increase in experience that working on a large scale with free software within the State will bring for Peruvian technicians, will place them in a highly competitive position to offer their services abroad.
You then state that: "12. In the Forum, the use of open source software in education was discussed, without mentioning the complete collapse of this initiative in a country like Mexico, where precisely the State employees who founded the project now state that open source software did not make it possible to offer a learning experience to pupils in the schools, did not take into account the capability at a national level to give adequate support to the platform, and that the software did not and does not allow for the levels of platform integration that now exist in schools."
In fact Mexico has gone into reverse with the Red Escolar (Schools Network) project. This is due precisely to the fact that the driving forces behind the mexican project used license costs as their main argument, instead of the other reasons specified in our project, which are far more essential. Because of this conceptual mistake, and as a result of the lack of effective support from the SEP (Secretary of State for Public Education), the assumption was made that to implant free software in schools it would be enough to drop their software budget and send them a CD ROM with Gnu/Linux instead. Of course this failed, and it couldn't have been otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and maintenance. That's exactly why our bill is not limited to making the use of free software mandatory, but recognizes the need to create a viable migration plan, in which the State undertakes the technical transition in an orderly way in order to then enjoy the advantages of free software.
You end with a rhetorical question: "13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn't it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?"
We agree that in the private sector of the economy, it must be the market that decides which products to use, and no state interference is permissible there. However, in the case of the public sector, the reasoning is not the same: as we have already established, the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law. As a counterpart to this legal requirement, the State must take extreme measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility of this information. The use of proprietary software raises serious doubts as to whehter these requirements can be fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so is not suitable for use in the public sector.
The need for a law is based, firstly, on the realization of the fundamental principles listed above in the specific area of software; secondly, on the fact that the State is not an ideal homogoneous entity, but made up of multiple bodies with varying degrees of autonomy in decision making. Given that it is inappropriate to use proprietary software, the fact of establishing these rules in law will prevent the personal discretion of any state employee from putting at risk the information which belongs to citizens. And above all, because it constitutes an up-to-date reaffirmation in relation to the means of management and communication of information used today, it is based on the republican principle of openness to the public.
In conformance with this universally accepted principle, the citizen has the right to know all information held by the State and not covered by well- founded declarations of secrecy based on law. Now, software deals with information and is itself information. Information in a special form, capable of being interpreted by a machine in order to execute actions, but crucial information all the same because the citizen has a legitimate right to know, for example, how his vote is computed or his taxes calculated. And for that he must have free access to the source code and be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs used for electoral computations or calculation of his taxes.
I wish you the greatest respect, and would like to repeat that my office will always be open for you to expound your point of view to whatever level of detail you consider suitable.
Cordially,
DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ
Congressman of the Republica of Perú.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Get any software you please from any vendor you please for your desktop workstations. If your computer isn't up to running it, we'll get you an upgrade, and don't worry about downtime, if you can't work while you're waiting, take some time off on us. If it won't talk to the other applications on our network, don't worry about it, it's our problem. Take some more time off on us while we fix it.
When a public policy position is this easily reduced to transparent (but not "Trustworthy") absurdity, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
Any organization has the right to mandate the use of software matching certain specifications to ensure interoperability and a common environment so that any employee will be able to function on any workstation she is assigned to for at least basic applications like mail, office apps, etc. It just happens that in a government, such regulations and laws have the force of law because it is the government. Further, it also has the responsibility to both itself and to its customers to keep information it collects secure. It can best meet this responsibility by mandating the use of securable software. Microsoft doesn't make any.
Moreover, a government is in a special position with respect to legacy software and formats. Unlike most businesses, documents created 25 or 50 years ago must be accessible not only to government employees, but to the general public as well. When looking up a legal precedent and why it was made, one frequently has to go back 25 or 50 or even sometimes, 100+ years to look up what the courts and the legislators had to say about it. Does anyone think MS will be around in 100 years?
Government also has special requirements regarding security, it has many databases full of software it must maintain in order to function which are an attractive target for h4xx0rs. The CA state employee database which got hacked a few months ago. Allowing state agencies to pick insecure MS products in the name of "freedom of choice" is just not acceptable.
Finally, one other point that should have been obvious to Tim. The Open Source Movement has gotten big enough that it either must get political or get crushed. MS lobbying killed the NSA Secure Linux project despite the fact that MS makes no secure products of its own. What's going on with respect to laws being made by politicians 0wn3d by Hollywood that will destructively impact the Open Source Community is known to all of us with the remotest clue. Until I read what Tim said, I would have put him in that category.
We can no longer afford to follow our previous traditions of ignoring politics or pretending to be a political player via geektivism, which as Declan has said, must ultimately fail. Politicians listen to our presentations politely and with blank incomprehension, our people get the feeling of having made a difference, then they go back to their offices and talk to the lobbyists who speak to them in a language they do under$tand.
We either have to learn to play with the big boys... to compete in the political arena with Microsoft and Hollywood as equals or find ourselves locked out of the software market and ultimately, locked out of the ability to use our own computers in any manner not preapproved by MS and Hollywood.
While I support the Digital Software Security Act and will tell my CA state legislators to vote YES, the Open Source Community is going to get our collective asses kicked over this one unless it is willing to organize a PAC for the purpose of collecting our money to redistribute to politicians...
If you want access to politicians, you've got to pay for it just like everyone else who gets it does. That's a lesson we must learn NOW for our own survival.
Tech Public Policy stuff
However, I would be all in favor of legislation prohibiting the purchase of software sold or manufactured by companies that were convicted criminals.
No one (even the MS apologists) seem even remotely axed by the fact that MS *HAS* in fact been found guilty of violating the antitrust act. They continue to violate that act now, yet no punishment has been levied.
Personally, I think a fine should be the minimum punishment. An MS-scale fine, eg, enough that they'd actually have to cut into their 40 billion reserve fund.
I think perhapbs 10 billion would be sufficient.
And the fine should be in *CASH*, not products.
Tim O'Reilly is a truely balancing force in the _computer_ world. Who else would have been able to get heads of MS and open source together on a stage and keep a fight from breaking out. He has contributed countless advances to _computer_ technology, and it is his level headedness and fairness that makes his opinion still respected and not discounted as some crazed lunatic as Stallman's points are offten seen.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
OPEN SOURCE is definitely "of the people", and it most certainly is "by the people", so why can't it be "for the people"? A legislation is necessary to ward off companies such as M$ from buying corrupt decision makers in lower tier management. By legislating that only OPEN SOURCE should be used, we are in essence removing the possibility that corruption will exist in the decision making process. M$ can buy off a few gov Dept heads (probably all of them), but it would be much more difficult to buy judges.
that the government doesn't already have the source to NT/etc.
What makes you think they don't? MS has licensed source for years.
I disagree with Mr. O'Reilly on this one for two reasons.
First, having worked for the government for three years before, the people in most government agencies who take bids and order items like computers and software don't know the difference between a 5 1/4" floppy disk and a 3 1/2" floppy disk, let alone know what Linux or BSD are. Where I worked, they consistantly ordered the 5 1/4" drives because, "they hold more data."
For this reason, I think OSS needs to be pushed in the government agencies. I'm not saying that they must be forced to use OSS, but rather OSS price gathering must be required during the bidding process.
It behooves the government to find the lowest cost on quality purchases, which is why they have the bidding processes in place. To deny a local vendor the chance to bid on a government contract is against the rules of the bidding process (at least in the departments where I worked it was). The agency must remain fair to all entities during the bidding process. Currently, operating systems like Linux and *BSD are overlooked in the bidding process. This should not be the case since there are many providers who probably would like to bid on such contracts. To my knowledge, they aren't even notified concerning upcoming bids. I think the bidding process should require the gathering and accepting of OSS bids along with Windows bids and the most cost effective solution should be the one that wins the bid.
My second reason is more a political one, and therefore perhaps not as important, but I believe if the government was not reliant on any particular vendor (Microsoft) for the majority of its operating system needs, then that particular vendor would not have as much power or influence in the government. I consider this a good thing.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When I am required to give my Social Security number to get a driver's license and that state uses Oracle to store the SSN, I am effectively forced to give Oracle the right to determine the level of security on my SSN. Also, Oracle is *NOT* required to be libel to me **AT ALL**. On the other hand, if someone uses yet another TNSlistener bug to get my SSN for identity fraud, all I can do is apply for a hearing to get my SSN changed. Since most identity fraud negatively effect the credit rating associated with the SSN, there is a high probablity that should an application will be rejected.
I want the right to review the goverment procedures related to use of data I'm required to provide. If the data is stored into Oracle then TNSlistener becomes part of that procedure. But Oracle neither warrents the security or makes the code available for me to audit. I find that to be an unacceptable "right" extended to Oracle. No company should be able to so greatly impact the procedures of goverment and be free of external review be the citizens effected.
What is even more upsetting is the claim that pro-OSI laws will result in anti-OSI laws. The CBTPA already exists for consideration. It is being submitted in a world in which other pro-OSI laws are also being submitted. But it would also be submitted for consideration even if *NO* pro-OSI laws where suggested. Anti-OSI is *NOT* a backlash of pro-OSI. To avoid OSI advocacy in law because of backlash of anti-OSI laws is to ignore the fact that anti-OSI laws are being promoted *REGARDLESS*.
Pretty please. They're getting revolting.
If everyone was forced to run open source, then how could the hackers send political messages as viruses? Having run linux exclusively for 7 years now, I agree with Tim, Let people choose.
I have never been with a donkey...although we do have lots of camels here. Um, forget I said that.
Might I point out that we're discussing the way in which the story we're discussing was presented, and how the method of presentation effects the overall point of the thread. I daresay this isn't offtopic by any stretch of the imagination, especially since the actual *topic* is somewhat up to debate.
Of course, I also find it weird that a swarm of moderators would come on and all decide to systematically mod all of the posts "Offtopic" in the twenty minutes since I last checked out this thread, but I've never been one for conspiricy theories.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
This doesn't imply that the software needs to be free in the FSF sense, but it implies that the code can be examined by any interested party. It doesn't mean that you should be allowed to modify it, though it is certainly an advantage to society.
It is this right that makes free software so important in public policy. It doesn't matter if a tool is better from a strict cost-benifit viewpoint, if it violates my right to know what goes on with the data I give to the government about me. I need to know for sure that MS doesn't have a backdoor that pass it off to their marketing department, or to any other entity I wouldn't want it to be passed to. If I can't be sure about this, then the tool has no place in public office.
So, I disagree with Tim on this, I think the simple "right tool for the job"-mindset is too short-sighted, but I think Michael's response was childish, and that he owes Tim an apology.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Quote from the article:
Does the law actually say: "companies that do not place restrictions on use or access to source code"? If so that would be unfair, and the law should be changed. We should allow any company to participate. But if the law would say "all software used by the government should meet these requirements...." that would be fine.
The government has every right to specify software licenses. A software license isn't some irrelevant piece of paper. It's integral to, and inseperable from the software. Since many licenses restrict "use" of the software, they presumably kick in as soon as the software is loaded. So, if the government is allowed to specify the behavior of the software, they should also be able to specify limitations on the license.
All of the problems that might crop up with using closed-source software can quickly and predictably be solved by mandating that the source code be publically available. (Vendor lock-in, unauditable software behavior, privacy, security, etc). This doesn't mean "Linux" or "GPL" (though those already meet the requirements). The government doesn't have specify a particular license, just that the software has to be available in source code form and can be freely copied and used by the public. Any company can submit, even Microsoft. They can charge whatever they think is a fair price for the software and for the support.
Another quote:
Interesting way to put it.. it's also similarly "criminal" for an official to buy Tetris as the department's accounting software. Or to hire a pastry chef to do important accounting.
The government has one overreaching responsibility: to serve the public. If a piece of software doesn't allow the public that paid for it to inspect it and use it, it doesn't meet the government's needs. By focusing only on the technical aspects of the software, and treating licenses as interchangeable pieces of paper, you make a big mistake. Some licenses serve the public interest better than others. That's why there's an Open Source movement to begin with.
This statement doesn't make any sense. Companies lobby and fight for their benefit all the time. And how about commercial open-source software developers, won't they lobby on the other side?
Now now, you're being unfair to companies that have secretive license policies and proprietary file formats! We should allow companies their choice of secrets so we can "level the playing field". Use the best technology for the job I say, don't worry about the strings attached.
If the government can mandate open file formats and open licensing, they can do the same for source code, which will create the same kinds of benefits.
Mandating open source software would be "a legislative agenda of increasing openness". There would be less secrets in government computing procedures that affect the public, and there would be less secrecy in licenses, and there'd be less problems with interoperability and vendor lock-in. Sounds like a good deal.
Now honestly, sitting here today, I'm not too worried about whether tax forms are prepared on a Windows machine or a Linux machine inside the IRS and stuff like that. But computers are important parts of our lives, and the power computers hold over us is growing every day. If the government uses codes that affect aspects of our lives, and pays with our tax dollars for those codes, we have the right to know how they work and no single company should have the right to any part of it. There's simply too much risk for abuse.
I find it unbelievable that so many here say it's "morally wrong" for the government to specify licenses. Some licenses are more closely aligned with the democratic process (just like some economic systems are more aligned with the democratic process). The government should, whenever possible, choose those licenses.
O'Reilly makes a *very* important point about forcing governments to use Open Source software: it's morally reprehensible.
Feh. All the time companies make rules about how IT will be implemented. Why should the government be any different?
At a company I used to work for, there was a corporate mandate handed down that all laser printers needed to come from HP. They also mandated MS Exchange for e-mail accounts, which I thought was a bad idea. They also mandated a whole bunch of other things, like security standards. Stuff like every corporate laptop should have an encrypted harddrive, so that if it was stolen, the files couldn't be (easily) read from it. I thought that was a very good idea.
So how is a memo from the CIO's office in a private company any different that a law passed by the state legislature in a government agency? How is that morally reprehensible, huh?
It would be morally reprehensible if they passed a law that said everyone had to use OSS. But that's not even being suggested here.
I'm a CIO now (though of a small company). There is no 'right to choose' for everyone in the company as far as IT decisions go. I decide. If there's something you need that can't be done with the existing infrastructure, fine, we'll discuss it and come up with a solution. But there will always be times when someone says 'I want to use X', and I'll reply 'make it work with Y instead', because that's what fits in with my company's IT policies.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I should clarify. When I say Monopoly, I'm referring to any company that has been rules to be such in a court of law. Which is basically just Microsoft.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
So in other words, all employees bow down to your employers and think like they do or else you'll get fired?? Gee, I wanna work there or wherever you currently put your keyboard.
Luckily at my office my abilities and opinion are greatly valued!
Jesus Michael. Why don't you post a comment and participate in the discussion like the rest of us rather than abusing your privilege of story posting as a vehicle for personal rants. This is a perfect example of why I'm still not a subscriber to Slashdot.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
Don't feed the trolls please.
'No one should be forced to choose open source, any more than they should be forced to choose proprietary software.'
There affirmative action for people, why not for open source software?!
I think michael would have done well to heed the old saying: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Essentially, michael is seeing Tim's words, and assuming that he has a nefarious ulterior motive. I think that the simpler answer is better (yay, Occam): O'Reilly failed to consider the necessity of transparency in government effort. (No, I don't think he's "stupid", but it's an apt quote.)
Many posts here keep mentioning that the government should choose its software based on whether it's "the best tool for the job". I agree. The problem is in the definition of "best tool for the job". Most of the anti-michael posts seem to think that "best tool" only includes one, or maybe two factors: the technical superiority of the software, and possibly its monetary cost.
There is a third factor, equally (possibly more) important in my view: The government's responsibility to make its work transparent to its citizens.
The government does not have any "right to choose" what software it uses on its own initiative. The government's entire existence is contingent upon the will of the people -- essentially, the government is a company whose board of directors is the American public. Its employees (individual government workers) are beholden to the company's policies -- they must use what tools it specifies, just like any employee at any company.
If the public decides that it wants more transparency in government work, then that is the public's will and the government's duty. If the public decides that one good way to get this transparency is to require open source software, then so be it. As a member of that Board of Directors, I get a vote in whether that happens -- although due to the rather byzantine legal processes of the land, it's only an indirect vote with a massive lag-time. Nonetheless, the government exists to serve its public, and must act according to its public's will.
I think O'Reilly has confused the rights of an individual and the rights of government. Namely, that the government has no inherent rights, except those granted to it by the people. His final comments begin to sound as if the government is being oppressed by such decisions, instead of enjoying the liberty that all humankind deserves.
The problem being, of course, that the government is not a person, and does not "deserve" anything. Saying that "no one should be forced to choose open source" in defense of a nonexistant government right is errant -- in other words, he is saying that we should not force the government to use particular tools.
Now, the idea that EVERY government software solution should ALWAYS be open source is not necessarily a good idea (it may be, it may not be, I don't know) -- but claiming that it is morally wrong because the government has a right to choose what it wants, is ludicrous. The government exists to serve the people -- it has no rights except those we grant it.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
This is actually a problem for commercial, private sector entities as well. The "problem" is not software licensing, though the ever increasing cost of such licenses should be a factor. The long term problem is data file storage format.
/06 files though it wouldn't write them. We all had to upgrade when our annual 06 lease expired anyway. Not a big deal - Microsoft licence fees have been a separate corperate budget line item for a few years now.
Consider the current trend toward shorter, more restrictive, time-limited software licensing. also consider the deliberate limited backward compatibility designed to "encourage" upgrades. Consider the backup and archive files we all burn onto CDs every day.
In the not-too-distant future, we will need to access some old file from July of 2003 created with Microsoft Word XP/03. We will all be using Microsoft Word XP/07 by then. Microsoft WordXP/07 was able to read all of the
How do we access that old file from 2003? The curent version of Microsoft Word doesn't include backward compatibility from that long ago... The old XP/03 disks won't install anymore because the license to use it has expired... Attempting to circumvent the XP/03 DRM'ed DMCA'ed installer would be a crime... How do we access those old files? The secret proprietary file format includes DRM facilities to be sure that no one can copy my files. The DRM mechanism itself is secret and prorietary and any attempt to circumvent it would be DMCA violation. Attempting to decrypt the file itself would also violate the DMCA.
Without standard, documented, accessable data file storage formats, it will soon be illegal to access our own archived files. Another entire I.T. department will be required to migrate archives from "old" formats to "current" formats before the license to use the old software expires.
Open source software might not save the world, but the data files it generates will never ever be locked away in a secret proprietary encrypted, DRM'ed DMCA'ed file.
Actually, I don't see a problem with the government buying something where the default format cannot be proprietary.
There is nothing wrong with selling 2 versions of the software, one for the private sector with proprietary formats default, and one for the public sector with open formats default. You *can* legislate (or executive order or FIPS) that the government (and government contractors) must use the government (open format default) version.
You see this in computer hardware sales already... Dell/Gateway have categories for their models. Home, Corporate, and Government. Doing the same for software is not at all a stretch. As far as that goes, Microsoft does it already. Windows XP Home and Windows XP Professional.
Now, this doesn't mean that the government will actually pay attention to its own rules... The DoD had rules about "all software will be written in Ada" for quite a while... and the most common piece of paperwork for any system was the "Ada Waiver".
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
So you want to know where the ROI is on things that blow up? The next time you get up in the morning and you are free to do whatever you want -- then maybe you better thank the fact that government has invested in things that blow up. Sure the government wastes money in lots of ways, but having a superior armed force -- technically superior -- is far from one of them. Sleep well tonight -- the technology of things that blow up is protecting you!
...does Tim O'Reilly ever change that beige shirt?
Breakfast served all day!
Is in proprietary mainframe systems.
.1% is in industry standard formats (.DOC, etc.) easily readable and usable by the common man.
The other
Public algorithms are important. Consider the case of audio and video. Technically, any MPEG player must implement algorithms which are covered by a number of patents held by individuals, companies, and universities. At least in the US, the Patent Office has allowed patenting of so many coding algorithms that it is difficult to implement a file format and player that does not infringe on some of them. The Oog people have been developing what they believe to be unencumbered algorithms, but it may take years (and multiple court cases) to establish that for a fact.
So, let's say that Company A has a "monopoly" product. Your law forces the government to use alternatives to that product. But, if the government can actually do this, then Company A's product is not really a "monopoly" product. Therfore, the government is free to use Company A's product. QED. ;-)
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
What I'm talking about is using the legal defintion of monopoly. That is to say, a company is a monpoly if a judge has declared it to be so. In most cases where a monopoly exists by that definition, there are still alternatives but they have an extrodinarily difficult competing in the marketplace because of the imabalance created by the monpoly.
I agree with your logic if we were going to take the literal definition of a monpoly.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Tim O. is the most political guy you'll ever meet.
When something so nasty and vial crosses my desk I have to say something, and let all of us who will be affected know as well.
Tim does manage the world-wide publishing company O'Reilly, doesn't he?
Thus, he is heavily influencing the software industry people here in the US.
... but not to all people. Some folks believe that open sourced code should be the only code out there.
Free/open source fixes all of those things. With open source - file formats should be no trouble, so that's issue #1. It's generally interoperable, and it's in itself (by having source) an "open standard", so that's #2. As for #3, if the code is open then anyone could hire anyone to fix the bugs. Just in case the vendor folds. As for #4 -- open source wins again. #5: huh? why not just have open source from the beginning?
Open source also fixes a lot of the problems you don't directly adress, like allowing easy fixing and allowing more ability to share, and more control over the workplace (via source) to government workers.
I've subscribed for updates on that campaign and haven't received any yet...
Does it really exist or is just PR FUD (as usually is)?
Cheers...
I don't think Tim O'Reilly remembers this story very well. In a mayoral election in Florida, voting machines running proprietary software were used, and the losing mayor of the election sued for an audit of the voting process. Of course, because the software is not open source, it can't be audited!
Sure, free software vs. proprietary software might be irrelevant for the OS or office suite a civil servant uses, but it is very important when the government needs to be auditable.
Make it open, and well defined, file formats, and I will accept it as a reasonable choice. (Drop the well defined, and I won't.)
I happen to believe that the public would benefit if the government switched to exclusively GPL software (with special exemptions needing personal signature by the head of the department, and him being legally liable for the truth of the justifications). This doesn't mean that I would insist on it (were I in a position to do any insisting). I would, however, demand that the file formats be open, well documented, and patent©right-free (i.e., if there were any patents that might impact the file standard, the owners would grant free use on any descendant software/file format provided it adhered to the GPL standards (Note that the owners of the patents would themselves be allowed to be as proprietary as they liked about their own work in any other context).
This doesn't mean that there would be a requirement to publish the file formats. In fact, did they choose to, the customers could require of the vendor exclusive rights to the file formats, and then never distribute them).
Basically, a file format is like any other software, but the operative verb is use rather than execute. So just use a slightly modified version of the GPL (doesn't O'Reilly have a proposal on its site?)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Open source put food on my table, bought me the table, made my marriage possible, allowed me to buy a house, adopt some cats and now (hopefully) start a family. There is no way I could have any of this if it weren't for RMS, Torvalds, Larry Wall and the rest. These technologies let me get started programming for virtually nothing and later helped me build up a reputation as a reliable guy who could get things done fast and cheaply. I owe more to this community than I can ever repay, but I intend to try by throwing as much of my company's IT budget I can manage at open source products and services and by contributing over 40 hours a month to getting linux running in local non-profits and schools.
Your short-sited view of profitability is like the media titans declaring that the internet is over since they weren't able to make big bucks at it. But like the internet, the free software movement is thriving, especially with young self starters like me who owe their careers, even their lives, to this technology and the great people who write it.
I'll have to agree with Michael on this. There are quite a few reasons that the citizens of a country would benefit if their government made the use of open-source mandatory for itself:
If you want to just let the government do its job (whatever that is) and not bother much, then this "right tool for the job" mentality might be useful. But I think that the government should serve the citizens (me and everyone else), that I cannot implicitly trust it, and also that it cannot implicitly trust the corporations that provide it with software. For all the above reasons, I hope the adoption, and even requirement, of open source for government operation becomes a reality as soon as possible.
Vasilis Vasaitis
Late readers: please moderate at Newest First, with a low threshold, to promote late writers.
the new o'really book coming out no really
Ave Molech Setting
And as for taking away "their" freedom, since when did the government ever become "theirs"? I thought it was our government. You know, "of the people, for the people, and by the people" and all that stuff. Limiting what our government can do is a very very good thing, a case in point being the bill of rights. Over time, the government tends to accumulate more and more power to itself, until you end up with a situation like today. Limiting the government at their software uses might be a relatively small thing, but it's a very important act in the philosophy of the US, which is supposed to place the power in the hands of the people rather than the government.
Tim's freedom to choose your own license still extends to every individual and corporation. Companies can still run whatever they want. But the government is yours and mine, and we have the power to mandate what goes on its desks. There is no mystical "they" deciding that closed software is all right. It's us. Make your decision, I've made mine.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
This is especially important to governments who are buying software from forign nations. Who knows what holes could be forced in by those forign nations. This way they can do security audits and be pretty sure that there are no backdoors..
Other than that, it should be the one that allows the government to work most efficiently.
Tim O'Reilly decries the "politicization" and
"radicalization" of the open source community.
It seems to be a libertarian axiom that freedom
and politics don't mix. I don't agree.
When a person refuses to engage in politics, all
he does is ensure that his voice is not heard in
the halls of power. The government is our
government as much as it is anyone else's, and
there is no reason why we should not strive to
have our values recognized and our concerns
addressed.
Some people have questioned the technical wisdom
of the California bill. They may have a point,
but it is orthogonal to my point.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
I love to see this lively discussion of such an important topic, but I feel we're talking about Tim's opinion on the proposed bill without actually reading the bill itself. Tim and his followers argue that the bill is unnecessarily restrictive. It does restrict the government, but is it really unnecessary? The proposed bill's preamble says:
Do we all agree that these are all valid, critical issues? Free software does offer a solution to each and every one of them, not always easy solutions, but better than what proprietary has to offer. As citizens, it is important to us that the government address these problems.
The "free software is about freedom of choice" mantra, while true for individuals, and really great-sounding, doesn't say a thing about how to solve the problems outlined by the bill. I have still to see anybody say "the restrictions are unnecessary because the concerns are not valid. We can address every one of them with proprietary software just as well, simply by..."
Until somebody does, I'm not impressed.
Why do we let M$ tell our government what to do. With /. numbers we should be able to lobby more then M$.
So what are we waiting for?
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
Actually, this law would have no effect on your department (if you were in the California government and it passed). It doesn't require anything with regard to software currently in use. It only says that *future* purchases must meet these requirements.
Which means that, if anything, we might all get an open-source version of SAS out of the deal when they next need to upgrade. Yay! Wouldn't that be a thrill?
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Should governments spend tax dollars to buy closed, proprietary applications that lock the people's data into tightly protected formats?
You're presupposing that all closed-source apps have a closed data format. You and I both know that that's simply not true.
What *should* be mandated is that all information that is accessible to the public is in a data format that is open. We as the public really don't care how the government gets it there.
software.
Open Software is all about freedom, which neither
free (as in FSF), free (as in beer) and commercial
software gives you:
* you are free in the choice which software you choose
* you may do anything with it except claim you wrote it
or sue the authors and contributors over it
Free (as in FSF) software doesn't permit the latter
(you may not close the source); free (as in beer)
software is basically commercial software.
But, if I were to choose a newsreader, and I am
currently using pine, but Microsoft in a sudden
removes _all_ the known problems from Outlook
Expreß and I can run it under wine, I'll probably
do it, because it is a better programme.
By denying the right to choose - even to choose
falsely - you are denying both the most basic
idea of democracy and the foundation on which
open software is built on.
----
People who read me often find I am no friend of
GNU, and I kind of hate the GPL (not the LGPL)
because of its viral effect. I also flame quite
often against GNU crap (also because it's often bloat).
But this post is not intended a flamebait in any
way, it rather tries to enumerate that denying the
right to choose is bad, and forcing free or unfree
(as opposed to open) software is bad.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
At first glance, I didn't agree with the analogy. What does racial preference and software preference have in common? Well, then I thought about it. The idea of Affirmative Action seems horrible (giving racial preference), but when you look at what its supposed to do its not so bad. Affirmative Action is a government program that tries to balance the scales. Before you start to think government has no business doing that, please don't forget that governemnt was fine with slavery. I don't think we need a refresher on slavery and the subsequent effects on equality.
So how is there a similarity between Affirmative Action and Gov't preference for OSS/FS? The government currently _has_ Windows/Lotus/"Jo Proprietary Co's app" mandates; I should know, as I work in the public sector where its all NT4/2K and not a Gnu in sight. Mandating MS products has certainly given Microsoft(and others) an edge over the competition. This "let there be competition" argument is nice, but there is no competition if the government helped misalign the field. Promoting OSS/FS would, like AA, would help fix the playing field that Joe Gov't helped mess up.
Aside from the ethical reason to go OSS/FS, I would have to agree with previous posters that I want to know *everything* my tax dollars go to. Now that I work for the gov't I feel that more strongly than ever.
I think that the editorial attached to the article waxes over an important point: Software is a TOOL. Just as we do not necessarily mandate that the government use specific shovels for digging, we should not mandate that they use specific (read open-source) software, but instead that they be able to use the "best" tool for the job (and make sure they know that open source tools are valid ones).
Open Source is nice in a corporate environment when the developers are responsible if something goes terribly wrong. But the government cant and shouldnt have to deal with all the flak when a non-critical aspect goes down. Hence Proprietary software.
Therea re more that enough drones out there ready and fully skilled to handle and be held accountable for proprietary software and thusly will be more inclined to not let it happen
No but it does show as a developer you can get paid to work on open source software.
Hey, Pets.com showed you can get paid to sell dogfood on the Internet, at least for a few months. You can make money playing the lottery too, but it doesn't mean it's a good business model. For some reason, OSS-advocates like you always try to use a qualitative argument where a quantitative argument was called for. No one doubts that it is possible to make money with open source. That is silly. The question is, how much money, with how much risk, and how many developers' salaries can it support.
RedHat is one of the few OSS companies that is actually making money above the line (however, they are still losing money below the line and they have never even had a single profitable quarter). RedHat employs a mere 600 people (only a handful of which are coders), whereas Microsoft employs tens of thousands. Which of these is more likely to pay you to code? I would even venture a guess that Microsoft has funded more OSS projects (indirectly, via employees contributing in their spare time) than RedHat has even dreamed of.
Redhat has a good buisness model,
You know, I'm a fan of counter-intuitive ideas. They are somewhat of a hobby of mine. But I believe that ideas that go against the grain require extraordinary evidence to back them up, and you have *zero* evidence to back up that last statement. Here's a hint: successful counter-intuitive ideas are not founded on the principle of "wishing will make it so." Congratulations, RedHat. If you succeed, you will have taken a $40 billion industry and reduced it to a $100 million industry.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
Insofar as we are not talking about FOI, that remark is a "stupid straw man." We are talking about procurement policy. Software must be judged on merit, TCO, ROI, maintainability, fulfillment of requirements, etc. Government should certainly be compelled to use open standards. Whether governments choose Open Source or not is in itself secondary, although one might expect that TCO, ROI, and standards compliance are often better with Open Source.
I agree with Tim O'Reilly:
No one should be forced to choose open source, any more than they should be forced to choose proprietary software.
Microsoft owns the software industry
And, as long as they pay, then there'll be a Microsoft. I can't pay. That's why I have Redhat 7.1 on this computer that I got from chguy.com (cheap). I'll not have XP unless Santa Claus brings it and stuffs it in my stocking hung by the mantle with care. You know, "The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there". Say, that's an idea, I'll call St. Nicholas and ask him for XP!
Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
I would really appreciate one (just one) example of two competing applications (one free, the other proprietary) with the same functional features, where the proprietary one is the "best solution".
For this, please take into account that: (a) open formats for storage and transmission of data; (b) assurance of the non-existance of back doors or spy code; and (c) ability to modify the application to suit it to user needsm must be part of the solution.
I'd go GPL.
What goes unsaid is that consumers and businesses have little choice in software EULAs from commercial companies. If you don't like it, don't use it.
As has been pointed out, Government IS different. A security flaw might expose everyone's driver's licenses or even more personal data. What if the EULA is one of those "we take no responsibility", so either the department shuts down for a year porting it (vendors disappear, programs become obsolete).
Another thing has been pointed out in the DVD debates - what about 25 years from now? There was a program on PBS a while ago called "Slow Fires" about how many books were deteriorating because of acid in their paper. Also noted were a series of video tapes, some valuable Nixon archival footage, but there were others, that there was ONLY ONE PLAYER available in the world.
"It's not that we have no record of your marriage, it is that the software expired".
Having the source is the ultimate out. Although I would allow for alternatives, in the case of failure, the (perhaps escrowed) source (and need I say a build environment) MUST be available to fix things.
After California's negotiation with Oracle, I can see why they would be careful, and that was just on cost, not the complex world of copying, usage, redistribution, etc. written into EULAs.
EVERY GOVERNMENT COMPUTER RUNNING INTERNET EXPLORER IS VULNERABLE TO THE SSL CERTIFICATE EXPLOIT. This includes Macintosh. Doesn't that make you feel good?
Microsoft's non-response so far leaves everyone vulnerable. Konqueror was for a few minutes, Netscape and Mozilla wasn't, but they would have been fixed.
Did anyone, anywhere write into a contract that this must be fixed? What do we do in the interim? Hope no one is running an exploit anywhere?
I would be all for writing quality control into the contracts. Having electronic things explode or burst into flames is probably something you would want to avoid, or at least insure you didn't have to pay for or keep a bunch of defective items around. But I doubt Microsoft would be able to fulfill any terms adequate to protect taxpayers. Fine, don't mandate open source. But mandate returns or refunds/rebates for defects, with the vendor bearing the cost of conversion if something isn't fixable (for techinical, political, or economic reasons).
Even with the move to privatization, you don't expect the company hired to keep all the critical information if their contract is terminated or transferred.
What about cars? There might be a defect in Crown Victorias where they burst into flame if hit from behind. Some silly police departments want Ford to fix the problem before they will buy any more. They should be glad to be stuck with defective products and at the mercy of vendors denying any problems. Demand fixes and parts?
We have a lot of examples of CRITICAL defects in software. In the Government, they must be FIXED in a TIMELY manner. This is a requirement.
Microsoft fails to fulfill it now, and I suspect there are many other vendors that couldn't. Others could, but the working system will take longer and cost more money. OpenSource is no panacea in this regard, but it is much better.
Do you want to wait months while the currently active exploits may or may not be worked on (usually the "window" is such that there are several active unfixed flaws at the same time), and if the deployment might crash other things (the mega service pack that breaks more than it fixes), or do you want the flaw found and fixed before it appears here?
O'Reilly displays a naive and weak understanding of the relationship between the technical and political spheres in modern society. He seems to believe that the Open Source Movement would be better off leaving the sphere of politics well alone. And unfortunately this policy of burying your head in the sand is one which seems endemic across the Open Source Movement, the majority of which seem to think that if they leave politics alone, politics will return the favour.
All I can suggest is that you read your history. Politics is in the habit of listening to those with the deepest pockets and this time it will not be any different. Multinational copyright owners, proprietory software companies and the Entertainment Industies have a lot riding on the tightening of control of intellectual property and they are not likely to just roll over and accept the dangers of Open Source to their control technologies (ie DeCSS et al).
You really need to think very carefully about what is actually happening here, we are not just looking at purely technical solutions to technical problems. Unfortunately life just ain't that simple. We are looking at big dollar signs seeking to maximise revenue through the enforcement of copyright and patent control assisted by law and technology. And in doing so they are threatening our freedom to use information because if they own it, you can't use it. Or at least not if you can't pay for it.
The foundations of our democratic states are built on the freedom of information to quote, reuse, critique and debate in a public sphere free from the control of private interests. Public goods need to be worked out in an arena where deliberation can be carried out and ideas freely exchanged.
The beauty of the Open Source movement is its commitment to open exchange, as Lessig terms it a cultural commons, where nobody owns or controls these public goods. Not just code, everything, literature, music, writings, speeches, essays, paintings all these things need to be reused and re-interpreted for our culture to remain vibrant and innovative.
Laws are there to protect and demark boundaries, and the state is there to enforce them. Crucially the decisions as to which Laws we should have are should be debated by all of us, that *includes* the Open Source movement. Without having a voice (whether radical or otherwise) no-one to hear what we have to say.
So I say more politicisation of the Open Source Movement, let it wake up and realise that its very existence requires that it move into politics and start contesting issues that it doesn't agree with. The Open Source movement needs to grow up and realise nobody else will hold its hand.
If that requires Law to protect Open Source from the very real threats that corporate interests make to it then SO BE IT. But these decisions and subsequent laws should be enacted after deliberation and debate with all sides putting their case in an open and democratic way, and it is up to us to put the strongest case forward for the Open Source movement.
David
http://www.locarecords.com
I installed a 5 year old (licensed) copy of Windows NT 4.0 on a recently bought computer. First, it wouldn't install because the 20 gig hard drive was too big for NT. So I repartitioned the C: drive to be less than 1 gig. Next, I tried connecting to MS update to get the latest NT service pack. Impossible: the version of IE (3.0) I had literally couldn't access the Microsoft website. I eventually installed a copy of Mozilla which allowed me to access MS update which allowed me to install SP6 and the latest IE.
Your department will be facing this type of problem if it already hasn't. Upgrading is a must over a large timespan, and should always be considered when making decisions about what to use.
So if the paper copy is kept in a file cabinet, do we have the right to know how the lock works on the file cabinet? Do we have a right to try to break into said file cabinet? Should we really lobby the government to outlaw the use of any file cabinet that's not home-brew with published blueprints?
;-) But seriously, companies meeting that description aren't selling secrets, they're selling software. They will probably be quite willing to comply with government open-source requirements. *And* they'll get a more secure lock on the deal, too; currently, they're constantly looking over their shoulder for big brother to come kick their ass with a better sales campaign.
I can find out what kind of lock is used, because I can find out who sells the agency their filing cabinets. But what's more important is who has access to those files, and what is done to ensure their security (besides putting a lock on the cabinet; who holds the key? How many keys are there?)
If I tried to find out this information and the government stonewalled me, I'd be pretty pissed and not a little bit scared. However, government agencies are usually pretty good about allaying citizen's fears by telling them exactly what it takes for someone to get access to information.
What about all the software a government might need that doesn't have a good open-source alternative?
I'd be mightily surprised if it takes more money for the government to get a piece of OSS fixed than to buy a license for a proprietary solution (which is probably overkill anyway).
Should we drive out of business all the companies that make cheap, good, proprietary software for government use?
They've already been driven out of business by M$ and their little brothers and sisters.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Been there, done that, T-Shirt's on back-order.
/is/ theoretically possible to run a computer with an old OS.
:)
I admin a heterogenus LAN over two site of about 200 comptuers each, we run a smattering of 9x/NT/2K/XP, the only reason We run the non-NT systems is becuase they are OEM and I don't want to be bothered by formatting a perfectly good install. NTFS in the NT4 installer can handle drives up to 2G in size, which IMHO is a good thing, because it allows you to toss all your data on another drive and if NT shits the bed, you can reform C: and not worry about D:.
The Service Pack is a problem, but anything above IE3 handles MSFT's site marginally (NT4 comes with IE2 by default) so it
Yes, you will face this problem, but there are always ways around it, I have a friend still running Linux 1.X. Its all relative.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
'Not to mention that many people committed to the MS way probably buy their training / support materials from MS Press.'
no wonder there are so many bad MS admins. O'reilly books are usually the best wheterher its oracle,MS,perl,etc...
You make sensible decisions when you have a choice between policies. You can make a more sensible choice when you have more alternatives.
GNU products are generally less expensive to license and more open to improvement and customization. GNU performs better in back-end environments.
MS products are generally easier to work with when you are new to computing. MS products integrate with each other easilly and also perform better in a workstation environment.
Open Source and Proprietory cannot usually integrate well together because of licensing constraints. I wouldnt like to make the choice for a whole government to use only one of both ideals.
Open Protocols and Open File Formats with less constraints on use would give equal opportunity to both ideals. Government intervention in this area should be possible and can be achieved by certain entities choosing one license for all products they use.
It will not be a bad decision to choose only Open Source. It can only help to increase awareness about interoperability between computers.
I say go fully Open Source just to make interoperability at a better possibility for all!
Pixels keep you awake!
Ah the joys of competing against a monopolist. ... If this were a simple matter of competing in an open market we would not be having this conversation.
Oh, nonsense. It's pretty pathetic to hear proponents of free software claiming that the competition, costing hundreds or thousands of dollars per unit, has an "unfair" advantage.
True, MS was able to starve Netscape of revenues by shipping a free knockoff of Netscape's commercial product, but it's Linux with the power to do this to MS, not the other way around.
If Linux can't unseat Windows as the most popular general purpose client OS despite being absolutely free, there might be something wrong beyond just an unfair MS monopoly.
Fortunately, the game's not over. Great projects like Mono and others that provide useful technology rather than political rhetoric may one day make Linux a superior choice for the average Joe. Not yet, though.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
I, as a citizen, am not compelled to use proprietary software to get what I need/want from it. Whether it be downloading tax forms, obtaining a list of sex offenders near me, or renewing my plates, I should never be required to use a company's product to access public information held by my oh-so-benevolent government.
The government isn't shackled to the whims of any company or cartel. This means M$ or RedHat. If it doesn't work out, the government can bid the job to someone else with minimal hassle in the changeover.
It seems to me that to require our government to use open formats is wise and comforting, but that specifying how they must do so is... well... irrelevent.
The only snafu I see with using proprietary software (in those instances where it is easier for the numbskull operator to use) is in ensuring that it implements the open format CORRECTLY! (not a la MS Java...)
It seems to me you are upset with the labeling of minorities. Certainly I would have to agree that is pretty hard to swallow. Unfortunately, AA will not work unless you can describe someone as a minority-hence the awful checkboxes.
Look, AA is pretty hosed. Your not going to get an argument about that from me. What else is hosed? Slavery, Dredd Scott, Plessy vs Fergason, women not being able to vote, etc... These are things the gov't did to screw people. AA, is a way to help undo that.
All of this "personal merit" talk is easy if you were never discriminated against.
check your own biases out bub. certainly it's not leftist but it's not ULTRA right.
With the continued ball bat tactics Microsoft uses on organizations from federal, state, schools, private organizations ect. While I am not real crazy about the idea of legislated opensource Microsoft makes it clear something has to be done to reign them in. I mean threating the NSA to stop work on a secure linux? Just who the hell does Microsoft think they are? Where do they think they have the right to demand such a thing? Any government agency or business has the right to use any OS/software they want. Without the fear of threats from a vendor. If CA does pass such a bill to make opensource at least a consideration or even manditory where appropriate, I say go for it guys. And on some comments made about the horrible costs of administering linux and re-training costs. Nothing more than FUD. Microsoft has already admitted their product costs more. In 1999 dollars upgrading a doze box with 10 seats cost approximately $9500 vs $1200 for a linux box. In any case even if those numbers are slightly off the fact remains the federal government pays a huge sum in license fees. Which for the most part would be insignificant is linux was in use. As for retraining, just how stupid do you think users are? Oh yea, mouse clicking is such a drain on brain power that even a novice could not figure out how to launch OpenOffice in a few minutes. I would like to see opensource used more in the government. It costs less short term and long term. But more importantly, since we are a government of the people by the people. Open source is written by the people for the people.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Open Source == Government-controled Market == Transparent government.
Closed Source == Free Market == Corporations control our information
I don't like all these pedantic tirades confusing the topic.
I certainly respect what Tim O'Reilly has done and will continue to do for OpenSource, but this is really a safe response for him to have taken.
O'Reilly sells books in both worlds of software. He has no reason to favor one or the other, and in fact would find it prohibitive to his business to do so. Understood.
It's also a bit trite to relegate Congressman Nunez' actions to great theater. It doesn't change the fact that he has no reason to trust what he can't see. Especially if it's shoved at him by a foreign entity. No one should trust code they can't see. Period. Public information systems, have a responisbility to the owners of the information to protect it as best they can. Closed licensing is prohibitive to doing that. It leaves the safety and integrity of our data to folks who have been, and continue to be proven in courts of law to be outright criminals. There's really no other way to see it.
Look at it this way. If I pay enough, or am considered important enough, I can get significant glimpses at most proprietary code on the planet. What vendors who reject this law at face value are essentially saying, is that the people aren't important enough. So that leaves the state the option of signing huge NDA's and paying huge amounts of money to ensure the integrity of our data. And still being unable to do anything more than request changes be made for the collective good.
The point I believe he is missing is that this is not about forcing someone to look beyond the merits of the software, but to consider open licensing one of those merits.
I think forcing the gov't to look at OSS first will create much more choice than we have today. A world where proprietary is the status quo.
I don't think my public data should be held at the whim of convicted monopolists. Given the deluge of malfeasance we're seeing reported in the press lately by officers of the world's foremost corporate entities, I have no reason to trust most anyone to not abuse or otherwise misuse my data.
Or let them arbitrarily decide when, if and how to fix security holes. Or purposeley code in back doors. Or limit what type of software I may connect/interact with such systems. Or force me into license schemes to pay for what I thought I already bought.
This bill is *not* proposing to outlaw proprietary software, just to keep it out of public trusts.
So, is the DSSA in it's current form too militant for most to take? Yes. Is it's heart in the right place? You bet. I hear the case for loopholes like "...in the absence of viable alternatives", but throw enough cash and incentives at any beureaucrat and suddenly OSS isn't viable.
By including such a loophole, you have to invest in an audit system to see what's being used where. And a system for proving/disproving the case for it's use and so on.
The day that closing the code, replete with hidden back doors and remote administration ports and protocols becomes a point of merit, then folks like O'Reilly and CompTIA will have a stronger point.
Enforcing open standards, and/or forcing "serious consideration" is a good start at a compromise. It doesn't make me trust M$, but it helps me trust the states buying decisions are based on something more than perpetuation of girth.
No bill was ever passed in its first form. The DSSA needs to be extremist to begin the conversation from this side of the equation for a change.
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I think O'Reilly himself would laugh at the fact that you find him so infallable.